Dental Care

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they are doing to improve access to regular dental care within a service that also encourages prevention and the continuing maintenance of good oral health.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to NHS dental services by calling NHS Direct. The working group, Options for Change, has proposed new methods of service delivery that would allow the NHS locally to place a greater emphasis upon preventive care and reducing oral health inequalities.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising dental surgeon. I thank the Minister for that Answer. As ever, he is very helpful about dentistry. However, does he not agree that the fee structure of the General Dental Service remuneration scheme encourages dentists to leave the health service? Despite continual reviews and the development of alternative systems, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. Will the Minister ensure that the Options for Change demonstration sites consider schemes which focus primarily on oral health gain and prevention with dentists being paid for maintaining oral health rather than for individual items of service?
	This is "National Smile Week". I shall be interested to know whether the Minister has any official appointments during National Smile Week—his assurances will bring a smile to both patients and dental surgeons.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have not, as yet, been given ministerial responsibility for smiling, but one is ever hopeful. As to remuneration, the noble Lord is right to suggest that the discussions around Options for Change are very much concerned with changing some of the incentives for dentists so that they are rewarded more for work in relation to prevention and oral health in general and less in terms of the treatment they give to patients. The average remuneration generally for a dentist wholly committed to the NHS, after costs, is between £55,000 and £60,000 per year.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that he has a great deal to smile about this week following the success of Birmingham City football club? Will he encourage the remainder of the country to be as fortunate as Birmingham in terms of having adequate access to fluoridated water as a sensible preventive measure? I declare a non-remunerative interest as president of the British Fluoride Society.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reference to Birmingham City's remarkable achievement on Sunday. As to fluoridation, I have long been convinced that for those areas of the country where there is severe dentistry disease fluoridation is one of the ways in which that problem can be tackled. It is significant that a large number of boroughs in the West Midlands, when compared to places such as Manchester, which has very poor dental health, do very much better than the national average.
	We commissioned a review of the research available on the efficacy of fluoridation from the University of York. It suggested that, overall, fluoridation is beneficial. However, it was felt that the amount of research available was not sufficiently robust. We have asked the Medical Research Council to report to us on the question of further research in the area.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my family are smiling even more because they are Arsenal supporters? On a more sober note, does the Minister remember that at the Labour Party conference in 1999 the Prime Minister promised that within two years everyone would have access to an NHS dentist? When the Government came to power in 1997, 54 per cent of people had access to an NHS dentist. That has now fallen by 7 per cent. Is it not time for dental health to be regarded as part of general health with free dental checks and delivery by the Government of the Prime Minister's pledge?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that the Prime Minister has focused attention on improving access to NHS dentistry. That is why he made the pledge and why we have put in place a system whereby patients who have difficulty finding an NHS dentist can ring NHS Direct, which will refer them to the nearest NHS dentist. In many parts of the country that is having a very beneficial impact.
	The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the willingness of the public to come forward for dental treatment. Again, there is a large variation up and down the country, with an average overall of only 43 per cent of the adult population receiving regular dental treatment. We need to improve our oral health promotion. That will be the benefit of the discussions that are taking place with the dental profession at the moment about a potential new contract.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will tell the House about access centres. As I understand it from an Answer that he gave me recently, people are referred by NHS Direct either to a local NHS dentist or to an access centre. Can the Minister confirm that setting up the 50 access centres in the country cost £50 million? What are the running costs of those centres—as I understand it, dentists work on a salaried basis—and what is their productivity in terms of how many patients are treated and how successfully?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, dental access centres are one of the ways in which we have been able to increase NHS dentistry for members of the public who have found it difficult to obtain such treatment from general dental practitioners. At present, 49 centres are being funded. Forty-seven are currently open, operating from over 120 sites. According to the figures for March 2002, some 300,000 patients receive treatment at the centres annually. A capital investment of £12 million took place in 2001–02. Those assets remain NHS assets. The revenue cost of the service in 2001–02 was £29.9 million. That is a good use of money to extend NHS dental care to many people.

Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most continental European countries, although every bit as keen on dental health as Her Majesty's Government, positively shun fluoridation? Indeed, some have banned it on the basis that the risks outweigh the possible benefits.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we commissioned the University of York to review evidence on fluoridation. The findings indicated that the fluoridation of water helps to reduce tooth decay. The review found no clear evidence of adverse effects on general health other than an increased risk of the mottling of the teeth.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, in regard to the concern about preventive medicine, have the Government any plans to recruit and train an increased number of dental hygienists?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am convinced that expanding the workforce in terms of the professions supplementary to dentistry—increasing not only the number of hygienists but also the number of therapists—could be of enormous help. Orders will be laid before this House this evening in relation to dental auxiliaries. Yes, the whole dental team has a role to play.

Gibraltar

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, before entering into the present negotiations with Spain about Gibraltar, they sought an undertaking from the Spanish Government that the ban on access to Gibraltar from Spain by air or ferry will cease.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we did not seek such prior undertakings because, as the Brussels communiqué of 1984 makes clear, such matters should be settled in the context of the Brussels Process talks. These talks continue. Our aim throughout has been for greater stability, greater freedom and greater prosperity for Gibraltarians.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and that she has taken the trouble to come to the House to give it. However, I have to ask her this important question. What is the point in proceeding further with these talks when the British Government and the Spanish Government between them seem to have made it absolutely certain that any deal will be rejected by Gibraltar? The Spanish Government have made no promise to lift their illegal blockade; and the British Government have as good as indicated that they will concede the principle of joint sovereignty. Will anything be left other than disillusionment? Would it not be better to break off the talks now? There is a very good reason for doing so in view of Spanish intransigence as regards the base.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point of the talks that we are undertaking is what it always was: to attempt to achieve a settlement in regard to a matter which has caused a great deal of difficulty between ourselves and one of our major allies in the European Union—a country for which we have great regard—in order to try to ensure that the standard of life of the people of Gibraltar is improved. What we are trying to achieve is the free flow of people, goods and services from Gibraltar to the Spanish mainland. We are trying to achieve a financial services hub for Andalucia and the wider region; to bring jobs and prosperity to people in Gibraltar; and to improve the communications—the airport and the ferry—in the way suggested by the noble Lord. I remind him that Mr Caruana himself said that there is no harm in proposals being put to Gibraltar to accept or reject, provided that the exercise is genuinely democratic. That is what we are engaged in.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, now that the 30-year rule allows us to see what was happening in 1971, is the Minister aware that in that year the then Conservative Foreign Secretary was seriously entertaining the idea of yielding sovereignty to Spain in return for a long leaseback arrangement? Is she further aware that the compromise was floated within the Foreign Office that sovereignty might be offered to the Order of St John of Malta—the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which was looking around for something to be sovereign over—and that a senior Foreign Office official scribbled in the margin of the document containing the proposal:
	"I would rather entrust Gibraltar to the Young Liberals"?
	Is the Minister also aware that the national chairman of the Young Liberals in 1971 is now the Minister responsible for negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Well, my Lords, how very wise he was in 1971. By a lucky coincidence the Minister is now taking the negotiations forward. Interesting as the reflections on events in 1971 are, the fact is that in 1984 it was members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition who set up the Brussels Process under which we have been negotiating. It is important to concentrate on the facts rather than on the myth. The United Kingdom will not end Gibraltar's link with Britain. We would not pave the way for Spanish control of Gibraltar. We would not end the military arrangements that we have on Gibraltar. All these matters have been circulating as myths, and that is not the basis on which Her Majesty's Government have been proceeding.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may express sympathy for the Minister in regard to the minor injury that she seems to have suffered and wish her a rapid recovery. As to the matter of access to Gibraltar, is it not a fact that the ferries operated up to 1969, and the air links up to 1978? Both were terminated by unilateral action by the Spanish Government. Is not the whole question of access being used as a bargaining tool by Spain in the current, sadly mishandled negotiations—which, far from helping the Brussels Process, are clearly putting the entire system at risk? Would it not be wiser now, and a matter of common sense, to let the negotiations lapse? Should not the Prime Minister tell Mr Aznar that on Monday? If the negotiations are to be restarted, they should include Gibraltar in a proper way. They should ensure that Spain's disregard of its EU obligations to Gibraltar and its lack of respect for Gibraltar's rights under the EU are properly corrected, so that there is a genuine concern for the future of Gibraltar and that it is not settled over the heads of the people of Gibraltar?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, nothing will be settled over the heads of the people of Gibraltar, because, as the noble Lord knows full well, any agreement will be put to a referendum of the people of Gibraltar and they will have the final say. Of course it is important that proper links are established back with Gibraltar, but, as the noble Lord knows, as things stand that is not possible, given the rival expectations of the Government of Spain and the people of Gibraltar. That is what we have been trying to sort out, under a process that was established when the noble Lord's party was in office. We must continue to do what we believe to be right and in the interests of the people of Gibraltar, knowing that they will have a full say in the final decision.
	I thank the noble Lord very much for his sympathy. It just goes to show that women of a certain age should not jump off garden walls.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is a long time since 1984, when the Brussels Process started. Is not the Spanish Government's ban contrary to the European Union's policy of freedom of the skies? The fact that Gibraltar is involved should be irrelevant.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, that is very much the view of the Government. Alas, it is not shared by the Government of Spain. They have a claim for sovereignty over Gibraltar, which we do not recognise, given the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. It is not possible to over-emphasise the importance of trying to get an airport in Gibraltar, which would serve not only the people of Gibraltar, but the people of the region and would act as a magnet for prosperity in the region. The same is true of establishing a ferry in the region. At this stage it is very attractive for those who oppose what the Government are doing, for reasons that I find hard to understand, to try and pick out separate little items of discussion. We have to look at the package of agreements that will be reached at the end of this painstaking process.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their investment policy for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, an investment policy was put in place when CDC became a public limited company in December 1999. This requires that 70 per cent of new investments, measured over a rolling five-year period, must be in poorer developing countries and that each year CDC should aim to make 50 per cent of new investments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The 70 per cent target has been exceeded in each of the past five years and the 50 per cent target has been exceeded in three out of the past five years.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. While we applaud CDC Capital Partners for its evident business skills, building up to the partial sell-off, does the Minister accept that in the past two years China has had little difficulty attracting inward investment? Can she explain why CDC Capital Partners has now started investing in China?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of CDC is to enlarge the resources available through the introduction of private capital in developing countries. We are doing that across a range of countries, including China. The noble Baroness is aware that our 1997 White Paper put the elimination of poverty at the core of our development strategy. That is why we are looking at poverty elimination across the world and investing in those countries where we think that a significant difference can be made.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a difference between aid and investment? Would she care to comment on the circumstances whereby, in the CDC accounts, the assets that it held from the pre-1998 investments, in a difficult investment year, were written down by 10 per cent, but the assets that have been acquired since 1998 have been written down by no less than 31 per cent? In such circumstances, does the Minister believe that the company is getting its investments right?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we believe that the company is getting its investments right. This is a transition period for CDC. It became a public limited company only in 1999. We are keen to ensure that CDC observes the investment policy that 70 per cent of investments should be in the poorer countries of the world and that there should be an aim of 50 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia. We all know that the operating environment in the past year has been extremely difficult for companies across the world.

NHS Pay System

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the reason for the delay in reaching agreement on the new National Health Service pay system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, final decisions on pay modernisation need to take account of the recent settlement for NHS funding. Considerable progress has been made in developing the new system. We aim to reach agreement as quickly as possible this year.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. I am sure that he is aware that negotiations have been going on for a very long time, in response to ideas put forward by UNISON in late 1996. I declare an interest as a nurse and a former general secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. In the 1980s, together with the late Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing, I bore the scars of negotiating and trying to sell the new clinical grading structure.

A noble Lord: Question!

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, as my old sergeant used to say when I anticipated an order, "Wait for it. Wait for it".
	Does my noble friend agree that it is important that we do not replicate the mistake that seriously damaged that clinical grading structure, when the Treasury refused to provide sufficient funding to secure the change in flexibility that was negotiated by the NHS management, CoHSE and the RCN? Instead, nurse was set against nurse. Does my noble friend agree that it is necessary that sufficient funding is available on this occasion to secure the completion of these negotiations in Agenda for Change? Does he further agree that it is vital that nurses and other health professionals are encouraged and supported if professional barriers are to be brought down as part of the investment and reform so needed by the National Health Service?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was well worth waiting for. There are many lessons to be learnt from the débâcle over the clinical grading restructuring that my noble friend referred to. It was a remarkable achievement some years ago to require the health service to undertake such a massive exercise, to put more money in and at the end to demoralise the whole nursing staff. It is clearly very important that we get the negotiations right and end up with a pay system that enables us to reward innovation and encourages staff to take on extra responsibility. I confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health told the RCN conference in Harrogate a few weeks ago that he is fully committed to Agenda for Change. He said:
	"we now want to move to conclude the negotiations".
	That remains our intent. Financially, it has to be a something for something agreement. Of course, we shall ensure that pay awards are appropriately funded on the back of the agreement that we reach on Agenda for Change.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following on from the Minister's last point, what proportion of the annual increase in NHS expenditure announced in the Budget does he expect to be spent on increased staff costs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot possibly expect me to answer that question at the moment. We are negotiating on taking the Agenda for Change proposals forward. For me to state to your Lordships' House how much money we intend to budget for such a proposition would be ridiculous. The noble Lord cannot expect me to do so.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the Minister does not know the answer to that question, he cannot possibly do a budget for the health service. If that is so, it may be why the National Health Service is in such a mess. They cannot get their sums right.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fail to follow the logic of the noble Earl's argument. Only three or four weeks ago, we received the Budget settlement which sets out the resources that the NHS is to receive over a five-year period. We put the negotiations on Agenda for Change on hold until we knew the outcome of the spending review settlement. Currently, we are engaged on working through the potential costs of Agenda for Change. Later in the year, we shall be able to start negotiation. The noble Earl is asking me to reveal my negotiating hand in front of your Lordships. However tempting that may be, I shall not do it.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in costing Agenda for Change, is the Minister taking into account the potential savings which would arise if the NHS were able to dispense with the use of large numbers of agency personnel, who not only cost much more than nurses and other staff who are regularly employed, but impose substantial overheads in administration of the system to get them into position?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord; we spend too much money on agency staff. In November, we launched a strategy for NHS professionals which is designed as a nation-wide service to bring much greater co-ordination and consistency to the use of temporary staff inside the NHS. We are also urging NHS employers to become much more flexible in their employment practices so that they can offer some of the flexibility that agency nurse agencies offer in addition to the rewards of being a full member of staff in an NHS organisation.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems we still have with the health service is the deplorable wages and salaries that have been paid in it for very many years, with the result that properly qualified staff are not attracted to the service? That in turn has had an effect on productivity and, therefore, on the efficiency and availability of the health service which the people of this country expect.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course pay is an issue in recruiting and retaining staff, but it is not the only issue. Other matters are important as well, including flexible working and support for staff to continue their development and professional training. It is worth reporting to the House that, since 1997, pay for nurses, midwives and health visitors has increased by at least 26 per cent in cash terms. We have also introduced new consultant nurse grades which give opportunities for earning up to just less than £47,000 per year. As the Agenda for Change negotiations culminate, we expect the result to be a much more sensible arrangement for pay which enables proper comparisons to be made across the NHS professions, encourages people to take on greater responsibility, and enables us to deliver the NHS Plan.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister please outline his plans to ensure that physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other highly skilled people, of whom there is currently a shortage in the NHS, are encouraged to continue working within the new structures of the NHS?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, they will be covered by our general discussions on the way in which pay and other matters are dealt with in the National Health Service. There is no doubt that the staff groups which the noble Baroness mentioned have a vital role to play not only in the new health service, but in taking on greater responsibility from doctors. We are keenly aware of the need to ensure that the NHS remains an attractive place for those professionals to work.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in his answer to my noble friend Lord Onslow, was the Minister saying that in the negotiations between the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Treasury did not secure undertakings on how much of the money being granted would be spent on staff salaries? Or is he just saying that he knows how much they are prepared to spend, but is not prepared to say it because he does not want his noble friend on the Back Benches there and the other members of the unions to know?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will know from his wide experience in government that many discussions take place between spending departments and the Treasury, and issues to do with the cost of pay of NHS staff is of course one of the factors. However, the noble Earl seemed to suggest that because I was not prepared here and now to say the exact sum to be spent on NHS staff—

The Earl of Onslow: No.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect, my Lords, he was. He was saying that if I was not prepared to do that, then we were not competent to run the National Health Service. If I were to come here today and say, "This is the exact amount of money that we have reserved for the cost of NHS salaries", when we have not yet completed the final negotiations, I would not be fit to run the health service.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 31 [Responsibility for fixing dates of terms and holidays and times of sessions]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 18, line 33, leave out subsection (3).

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 138, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 138A and 140.
	Amendment No. 138 proposes removing the regulations outlined in subsection (3). If I am not successful in that amendment, I would invite the Minister, as outlined in Amendment No. 138A, to say when a parent is not an individual. I do not know many parents who are not individuals. The phraseology used in paragraph (d) of Clause 31(3) does seem unusual.
	In Amendment No. 140, I use the five-term year as an example of the way in which the provisions in this part of the Bill are being used to impose on all schools without proper consultation a particular pattern for the year. So it would be helpful if the Minister would give us not only the Government's view on a five-term year, but assurances that, if there were to be any changes along the lines of a five or even six-term year, as is now being advocated, there will be proper safeguards in the consultation process.
	I return to subsection (3). The Bill provides, I think, for a record number of sets of regulations. Each of those sets of regulations is usually supported by another document described as guidelines and/or guidance which will be sent to each school. As I have said so often, our schools are now so overburdened by the task of interpreting the legalese of regulations and following guidance and guidelines that they have to spend almost more time on that than working in the classroom with our children. Every time I seek to remove regulations from the Bill, I do so really in the interests of teachers and the time available to them. Predominantly, however, I do so in the interests of the children who wish to have teachers' attention focused on their learning rather than on interpreting regulations generated from the centre.
	My second objection to the number of regulations in the Bill concerns central control. Why should the Government under Clause 31(3) prescribe the procedure to be followed,
	"(a) where the governing body of a school within subsection (1) propose to make any change in the time of the school sessions;
	(b) as to the implementation of any such proposal;
	(c) for enabling the local education authority to determine, for any purposes of the regulations, whether any person is to be treated as a parent of a registered pupil at the school"?
	Why does that require central regulation? Under paragraph (d) of subsection (3), to which I have already referred, why may regulations make provision,
	"that for all or any prescribed purposes of the regulations references to parents are to be read as excluding those who are not individuals"?
	I look forward with interest to hearing the noble Baroness's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin with Amendment No. 138. Subsection (3) of Clause 31 is the direct re-enactment of the existing Section 41(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The regulations made under that section set out the procedure to be followed where schools wish to make changes to session times. We believe that this is important. It is crucial that parents are notified of changes that may be made to session times. That is particularly pertinent, of course, to working parents but it is important for all parents to be given time to reflect upon, understand and have a say in the matter. As I say, the legislation as it stands as reflected in Clause 31 recognises that significant impact. We believe, therefore, that it would be wrong to remove that protection set out in regulations, certainly without first consulting those affected. At present we detect no desire on the part of schools or education authorities to make changes to the current situation.
	I turn to Amendment No. 138A. As I said, we do not believe that we can remove subsection (3) of Clause 31. However, as the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 138A would remove only paragraph (d) of Clause 31(3). That measure is also a straightforward re-enactment. The subsection exists to deal with the apparent anomaly of an authority being required to consult itself as a corporate parent about changes to school session times. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made an important point. The current regulations do not distinguish between corporate and other parents. Therefore, we are happy to accept Amendment No. 138A as drafted by the noble Baroness.
	I turn to Amendment No. 140. Term dates are set by local education authorities or governing bodies depending on the category of school. As things stand, that decision is taken on a local basis. As the Committee will be aware, a small number of schools are already running a five-term year. Few representations have been made to the department to change the present arrangements under which school term dates are decided locally by those most affected. The consultation procedures appear to work well without the need for procedures to be set out in regulations.
	It is, of course, inevitable that there is some variation of term dates from year to year. Variations in the date of Easter have always caused annual variations in term dates. That being the case, we do not believe that one particular model of a school year should be singled out in primary legislation. I recognise, of course, that the noble Baroness used that as an example. The Committee will also be aware that discussions are being undertaken at the moment with the Local Government Association on a fixed-term year as an alternative. Those proposals, of course, are not covered in the amendment although the Government have made it clear that for our part we would need to be convinced that there was widespread support for change before lending our support either through legislation or guidance.
	Although it is not a statutory requirement, we expect local authorities to consult widely on issues that affect people in their areas. Currently, several authorities are consulting locally on changing to a six-term year. The evidence is that local education authorities understand the need for wide consultation. We therefore do not believe that a duty to consult is necessary here. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful and, in fact, almost overwhelmed that an amendment has been accepted and so early in the day. I hope that that sets the tone for the rest of the day.
	As regards Amendment No. 138, the noble Baroness seemed to say that because the relevant measure is a re-enactment it is all right. When I stood at the government Dispatch Box I used the argument, "It has been done before and therefore why cannot we do it again"? However, that is never an intellectually sound argument for doing anything. Just because something has been done before does not necessarily make it right. I argue that there is a case for removing the regulations that we are discussing.
	In responding to Amendment No. 140, the noble Baroness appeared to say that local consultation works well, that the Government expect it to continue to work well and that therefore they see no reason why the measure should be included in the Bill. However, that same argument is used in favour of requiring regulations in subsection (3); namely, that it is important that consultation and the way in which procedures work locally must be bound by regulations set from the centre. If the argument against Amendment No. 140 is a sound one, why is it not also sound in terms of supporting Amendment No. 138? There is an inconsistency here. I shall wish to read what the noble Baroness said and digest it carefully. I may return to the matter, but in the meantime I am pleased that Amendment No. 138A has been accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 138A:
	Page 18, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) for the principles and procedures to be followed by the local education authorities and governing bodies of schools in determining the dates of the terms in any school year"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of the amendment is to help pave the way for something that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just admitted she is fundamentally against; that is, changing the school year. The amendment must be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 157 which we have already debated, but which, lest the Committee has forgotten what it says, attempts to define the concept of the school term as those days within any discrete period of the school year,
	"on which pupils are required to attend school".
	Amendment No. 139 asks that an extra subsection be added after subsection (3) of Clause 31—the subsection that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said was otiose—to enable secondary legislation to set out the principles to be followed in determining the dates on which school terms and holidays are to begin and end. Together, these two amendments pave the way for local education authorities to move towards a standardised school year. Neither amendment is strictly necessary. The response given to Amendment No. 157 was that the LEA, or the governing body in relation to voluntary-aided and foundation schools, has a clear duty to determine the dates of holidays as well as terms. That means that half-term holidays and faith holidays can also be fixed by the local education authority and that does not leave any ambiguity. However, some of us feel that there is a degree of ambiguity in that regard. For the sake of completeness it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill a definition of the school term and—this is where the relevant subsection comes in—the principles that are adhered to by the local authority in determining the school year.
	The case for standardising the school year is well known. With children frequently moving from one area to another and LEAs varying their holiday patterns, sometimes by as much as two weeks in one direction or another, many families can be greatly inconvenienced. The long autumn and, when Easter is early, summer terms cause stress and illness among pupils and, more particularly, staff. For exam years half the summer term is effectively lost and exams often come at the peak of the hay fever season.
	City technology colleges free from LEA constraints have for the past 10 years experimented with a five-term year. They claim that part of their success derives from the smoother pattern of teaching and study that that has promoted. The current pattern of the school year with its long holidays in July and August, to coincide with the harvest, dates back to the 19th century. The Local Government Association set in train consultation among local education authorities a couple of years ago in an attempt to reach agreement on some form of standardisation. That led to the setting up of an independent commission under Mr Chris Price, which has been consulting extremely widely. It came up with two proposals involving relatively minor changes which would, in effect, create a six-term year. Those changes are: the standardisation of a two-week break for the half-term in October, making, in effect, two seven-week terms between September and Christmas; and the standardisation of a two-week break, whatever the date of Easter, in the second and third week of April, so that there would be two six-week terms between Christmas and the April break, followed by two six-week terms in the summer. That would leave the five-week summer holiday effectively intact.
	Those proposals have received wide support and many LEAs will begin moving towards them in 2003-04. As has been said, strictly speaking, no new legislation is required. However, the two amendments would help to clarify the purpose and the ease of the process of standardisation. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: There are two issues in this regard. The first involves a fundamental change in the structure of the school year and the decision whether to go from the current arrangement to a four-term, a five-term or even a six-term year. I have seen the literature on the six-term year and personally I am quite attracted to it. However, that is a personal view, which I do not advocate for schools. I have a difficulty about imposing a "one size fits all" policy on our education system, and I should want to think very long and hard about imposing that approach on every school in every LEA. In relation to any change in that regard, there should be full consultation and total involvement of parents and people in the local communities.
	In turning to my second point, I shall speak on behalf of parents. There is incredible frustration among parents about the fact that different schools in their locality start and end terms at different times. That creates all sorts of tensions in families with two or more children, who attend different schools. Parents are run ragged trying to cope with the different dates for the beginnings and ends of terms. There is much to be done in that regard; we must have better co-ordination and put in place better arrangements so that parents are fully involved and can express views on the start and end of a term. That is a different point from that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister's response.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was much taken by the statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the need to consider very carefully before imposing a "one size fits all" approach in this regard. As we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, term dates are currently set out by LEAs or governing bodies, depending on the category of the school. Clause 31, which will bring nursery schools into the arrangements, leaves that position intact.
	We have had few representations to change the system because, I believe, the consultation procedure is working well. Members of the Committee will be aware of the relevant examples. In Wigan, the pattern of terms was changed locally. A detailed consultation was conducted—the relevant information will be available to Members of the Committee. East Sussex is often quoted as an example of an LEA that consulted on a six-term year. In light of responses to that consultation, it decided against that change.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was right to say that there is not a specific statutory requirement to consult. However, we expect LEAs and school governing bodies to consult widely on issues affecting people in their area. We have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong in this regard. We believe that the procedure is working well. We should not seek to regulate LEAs and schools unless there is a clear need to do so. The evidence is that LEAs understand the need for wide consultation, give parents good notice of term dates and generally take their responsibilities in this area seriously. I believe that governing bodies of schools—often as advised by their LEAs—understand that, too.
	In this context, there is no real need for regulation. The current procedures work well and there does not appear to be a need for further change. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. As she pointed out, the process of consultation has been extremely wide. LEAs that are attracted to the idea are also consulting extremely widely—there is no question of them not consulting parents. They are going along that route for precisely the reason described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch; namely, that many parents are very frustrated by the fact that school holidays do not coincide. There would be advantages to some standardisation. It is around that notion that LEAs are consulting. That is what lies behind the approach.
	I accept what the Minister says. I was asked to advance the amendment by Mr Chris Price, who is leading the consultation, because, as I said, he felt that it would clarify the position and help the consultations to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
	Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Annual parents' meetings]:

Lord Tordoff: We now come to Amendment No. 141. I point out that if Amendment No. 141 is agreed to, that will pre-empt Amendment No. 142.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 141:
	Page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Blatch: I wonder how independent schools exist at all. They do not have an LEA or a Department for Education and Science, and they do not have regulations galore, guidance or guidelines but, somehow or other, they get by. That is the thinking that lies behind this amendment.
	I really cannot understand why the Government believe that they have to make regulations—they will be issued from the centre by the Secretary of State—governing how schools conduct their annual parents' meeting. There is already in statute requirements about what has to be included in annual reports and about what information has to be given to parents about their children. What about the idea that there should be regulations about the purpose of the annual general meeting or about the circumstances in which a governing body will be exempt from the obligations imposed by Clause 1?
	Subsection (1) states:
	"Once in every school year the governing body . . . shall hold . . . an 'annual parents' meeting' . . . which is open to . . . the head teacher, and . . . such other persons as the governing body may invite".
	Why do we need regulations on that matter? We have previously discussed innovation projects. The Government accepted that a project may be intended to raise standards in a school. It may be wholly acceptable within a project, for one reason or another, not to hold an annual general meeting or to hold it in a different manner—perhaps once every two years, for example. That could be dealt with as part of the application for the innovation project. However, as a rule, having regulations in that context is wrong.
	We also have regulations on the procedure to be followed for any such meeting. What is there to stop a school from deciding how to run its annual parents' meeting? Schools that reside in the leafy lanes of our country have little difficulty with annual meetings—when they call a meeting, it is well attended. People arrive and are told about the school and the progress of their children. There may be a guest speaker and everybody goes away happy. In other parts of the land, head teachers and diligent governing bodies work incredibly hard to raise interest in the annual meeting but have great difficulty getting parents to attend. In those cases, they resort to different ways—perhaps more entertaining or novel ways—of encouraging parents to come along. Why not leave the way in which meetings are conducted to the schools? As I said, they are already controlled by statute in terms of the information that they have to give to parents in other ways.
	Then there are regulations which make provision for imposing requirements on the governing body, the head teacher and the local education authority in relation to resolutions which have been passed at any such meeting. They include requirements framed by reference to any opinion formed by the governing body. The nanny state is going too far in this respect.
	Finally, there are regulations to enable the governing body or, as the case may be, the local education authority, to determine for purposes connected with the annual meetings whether any person is to be treated as the parent of a registered pupil at the school. Again, do we really need that?
	Therefore, the thrust behind the amendment is that these regulations are a step too far. The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to take at least one set of regulations out of the Bill and give schools the space and freedom to exercise their own professional judgment. Schools already have an obligation set out in statute to inform parents about what is going on. We should leave them to be as innovative as they wish and should not seek for them to be governed by regulation. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We go along with subsection (1). We are anxious that there should be an annual parents' meeting. I believe it is important for there to be an obligation on a school to arrange a time at which to acquaint parents with the developments that have taken place and to keep them in touch with ideas that are developing within the school. However, it seems to be unnecessary for regulations to stipulate precisely what goes on. If the department considers it necessary to lay down suggested guidelines, why does it not introduce guidance rather than regulations? That would be far less heavy-handed. Therefore, as I said, we have much sympathy with the amendment.

The Earl of Sandwich: I, too, warmly support the noble Baroness's amendment. I do not understand why we are not all on our feet saying that here at last is an opportunity for there to be no regulations. Can one imagine a parents' meeting at which the parents have to check the regulations to see whether anything has been offended against; or can one imagine governors scurrying down the corridor to check exactly what is being said? It is unimaginable, and I hope that the noble Baroness will take this second opportunity to accept an amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Opportunities come only once in a while. I take note of what noble Lords have said. I confess that I smiled to myself slightly as I have chaired several annual parents' meetings. I believe that I fall into the category, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of struggling to get parents to go along to meetings. However, I know from previous experience that parents are quick to attend an annual meeting if it is to discuss an issue of great concern to them. In other words, if something is going wrong in a school or if an issue is burning within a school, then parents feel the need to be at the school and to know exactly what the processes and procedures are. That is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve here.
	I accept that one reason for seeking to introduce the regulations is so that we can reconsider these issues over time and not wait for primary legislation in order to do so. Therefore, we understand and appreciate the thrust of what Members of the Committee are saying. I also understand the desire that everyone has to ensure that the meetings are fulfilling for parents and that they are innovative and novel in terms of persuading parents to attend.
	However, in this case we are in the business of introducing safeguards. It is appropriate that, where things are not as parents would wish them to be within a school, we consider how to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights. That is why, if 20 per cent of the parents of pupils at a school attended such a meeting, they would have the ability to pass resolutions. The provision is intended to give parents power if they are faced with an issue of huge concern. We believe that it is important to retain that opportunity.
	Therefore, although I appreciate that the spirit of the amendment is to allow freedom within schools, the purpose behind our desire to keep the matter within regulations is to provide a safeguard for the moments when things do not go so well. Having chaired several annual meetings of parents, I do not believe that spending a great deal of time on formal business takes away from those meetings if things are going well.
	I understand that the concept of such meetings was originally based on the idea of a company directors' meeting, and that is why they are rather formal. However, in terms of what can be achieved beyond the formal part of the meeting, I believe that many people have produced interesting and innovative ways of involving parents with discussions, guest speakers and so on.
	Therefore, the regulations allow us to make adjustments and to accept that, as times goes on, things change. Nevertheless, on this occasion we believe that the safeguard is necessary. While I appreciate entirely the Committee's wish that annual meetings should not be anything other than occasions where people can debate matters, the regulations would ensure that, if something went wrong, a process would be in place to which parents could turn and use for their benefit. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: One argument that the noble Baroness employed against my amendment was that, when things went wrong, the procedures would be needed. I believe that she also said that parents can be persuaded to attend a school when things go wrong. I know of some schools where the head, the teachers and the governors work their socks off, yet where, frankly, sometimes things do go wrong. Those people would give their eye teeth for 20 per cent or more of their pupils' parents to attend their meetings and to take an interest in what is going on and appreciate what the school is trying to do to resolve some of the problems. In those circumstances, co-operation with parents would make all the difference. Those schools have to resort to non-traditional ways of holding meetings and have to employ far more innovation in order to persuade parents to go along. Therefore, I do not believe that that argument is of help.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was absolutely right. One problem in relation to regulations—we have read of more regulations passing through this House in recent times than I care to think about—is that they do not make allowance for each and every school. Whatever goes into regulations usually applies across the board. They may distinguish between primary and secondary schools or between one category of school and another. However, by and large, they usually refer to all schools in a particular group. Therefore, I am not sure that regulations are sufficiently sensitive to allow for the type of freedom that I believe, given the obligation in subsection (1), schools and teachers should have.
	The other argument used by the noble Baroness was that regulations would act as a safeguard for parents who were concerned about what went on in schools. However, we have an inspectorate. When inspectors enter a school, they make judgments about the quality of the relationship between the school and its parents and the interaction between the school and the children. As I said in relation to previous amendments, the children are interviewed by the inspectors without their teachers being present.
	In that way, one can obtain a feeling for the way in which a school is responding to its parents and the way in which the school is meeting its obligations under the law in terms of informing its parents. Certainly it would be possible for the inspectorate to pick up whether the school was meeting its obligations under subsection (1) of Clause 32 and, if it were, perhaps to make comment on the good, bad or indifferent way that a school was trying to meet that obligation and trying to increase the number of parents who attended meetings. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 141) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 119.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Tordoff: I cannot call Amendment No. 142 as it is pre-empted by the result of the Division.

Lord Rix: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 142:
	Page 19, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)

Lord Rix: Shall I be able to return to my amendment in some form or another on Report? If that is possible, I shall want to do so.

Lord Carter: It is pre-empted by the result of the Division, but the noble Lord may return to it on Report.

Baroness Blatch: Although the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has fallen as a result of the Division, I believe that he is saying that there is still an outstanding point to be made. My understanding is that it will be possible to bring back a free-standing amendment on Report so that the matter can be considered at that time.

[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
	Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 33 agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools]:

Lord Tordoff: I have to advise the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and others that if Amendment No. 143 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 144A because of pre-emption.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 20, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) Any teacher or other member of staff who is appointed to work under the direction of the headteacher of a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the local education authority under a contract of employment."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 143, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 and 150 to 153. This group of amendments relates to Clauses 34 and 35. Clause 34 deals with staffing of community, voluntary- controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools and Clause 35 deals with staffing of foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools.
	Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 seek to clarify that a member of staff, teaching or otherwise, employed at a maintained school, a voluntary foundation school or a voluntary-aided school works under the direction of the head teacher and must have a contract of employment either with the LEA or in the case of the foundation and voluntary-aided schools with the governing body. The wording of the Bill as it stands merely states that there shall be a contract of employment at a school.
	The subtle change in the wording from that on the face of the Bill has a significant effect. It means that any member of staff who has had a conventional relationship with a head, working, in the case of teachers, under the reasonable direction of a head within the framework of the school teachers' pay and conditions document, must be an employee of the LEA under a contract of service and must not be self-employed or employed by an employment agency. That would help to resolve any problems with employment agencies over contractual terms and pay. It is a sensible measure. For teachers it will achieve a consistent application of the pay and conditions document and resolve technical legal anomalies about the subsection's powers of direction. If nothing else, it is a good issue for debate.
	The amendment does not insist that all staff working for the school must be LEA or governing body employees. That would be instantly rejected as being inconsistent with a large number of the provisions of this Bill. Rather it seeks to refer the distinction between employees and others to the question of whether the head is directing the work of a subordinate staff member or managing the engagement of a self-employed contractor or employment business contractee.
	Amendment No. 150 in Clause 35 has exactly the same purpose as Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendments Nos. 145, 146, 151 and 152 are submitted at the behest of the National Association of Head Teachers because they feel that these issues must be spelt out by regulation. For head teachers there is no "may" in this matter. They must run their schools and need clear guidance on these delicate issues of staffing.
	Amendments Nos. 147 and 153 aim to reinstate in primary legislation the principle that the LEA should have a role in the appointment of head teachers. Primary legislation currently contains the principle that LEAs can advise governing bodies on the appointment of heads, an important role if LEAs are also to have a duty of promoting high standards of educational provision in their areas. The Bill drops that provision from primary legislation. These amendments seek to reinstate it. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 144A, 146A, 149, 152A, 153A and 153B. Amendment No. 144A allows LEAs to employ staff in failing schools. Amendment No. 146A explains who works at a school otherwise than under contract. It would be helpful for the noble Baroness to explain precisely who they are talking about here. If they are volunteers, why are they not referred to as such? Part-time staff work under a contract; professional people work under a contract; full-time people work under a contract. Who are the people who are employed at a school but do not work under a contract?
	Amendment No. 149 would negate the need for regulations in subsection (4). Amendment No. 152A again refers to staff who work otherwise than under a contract of employment. Again, I should like to know exactly what that means. Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B refer to the schedule on page 130. Given that we are talking in Part 2 about foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools, I cannot understand why the arrangements for the staff in the school should be determined by the local education authority for those schools. The provision goes on to say that in foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools,
	"Except with the consent of the authority, the governing body shall not—(a) appoint any teacher to work at the school, or (b) dismiss any teacher at the school".
	It would be helpful to know from the noble Baroness what that means. As we have said, these provisions concern the arrangements for staffing. Staffing in those schools which are community schools and maintained schools, voluntary-controlled schools, community special schools and maintained nursery schools should be free to appoint their own staff, unless they are schools which are failing in which case it makes sense that that should come under the control of the LEA. In the case of the staffing of foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools, Clause 35(2) says,
	"Except as provided by regulations under subsection (4), any teacher or member of staff who is appointed to work under a contract of employment at a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the governing body of the school".
	Yet on page 130, Schedule 2, Part 2, it says that the arrangements for the staffing of the school—that is, foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools—shall be determined by the LEA; except with the consent of the LEA the governing body shall not appoint a teacher or dismiss a teacher at the school. That seems to contradict what is being said in Clause 35. It would be helpful, first, to know who these people are who are employed in schools other than on contract; secondly, it would be helpful to have better clarification about what appear to be inconsistencies on the face of the Bill as it relates to foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools and whether the Government will consider giving just a little more freedom and autonomy to schools over their staffing unless they are, through inspection or any other measure for measuring competence, not competent to do so.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I support the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I too am in some confusion as to how this relates to voluntary-aided and foundation schools. Secondly, can the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, say whether, if we replace the word "may" with "shall" in subsection (5)(e), it will place on local education authorities powers with regard to the voluntary-aided and foundation schools? I rise to ask those questions because I do not know the answers and believe that, as presently drafted, the Bill is in some confusion about the matter.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The regulations and statutory guidance under Clauses 34 and 35 will enable the Secretary of State to provide detailed staffing arrangements for schools. As Members of the Committee have said, Clause 34 applies to community, voluntary controlled, special and maintained nursery schools where the LEA is the employer and Clause 35 applies to foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools where the governing body is the employer. Those regulations will include arrangements for the appointment, discipline and dismissal of teachers and other staff and provision of appropriate professional advice.
	I shall deal with the specific amendments in their groups. I turn first to Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150. They refer to employment by the local education authority or governing body. The amendments would place difficult burdens on schools as they currently operate. They would place unhelpful limitations on both their existing and future scope in utilising various staffing resources from outside schools for delivering education.
	In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about who these people are, many schools currently use staff who are not employed under contracts of employment with the local education authority or the governing body of the school. If Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 were introduced, schools and LEAs would be unable to make use of teachers from supply agencies or to use contracted-out support services, such as for meals or cleaning.
	Equally fundamental, the amendments prevent schools innovating by bringing resources in from outside the school to improve the education provided. For example, the amendment means that staff from other schools or from further education establishments could not be shared and that innovative arrangements for delivering education, such as the use of information and communications technology (ICT), would be restricted. That would be a backward step. The Bill does not alter basic staffing positions in schools, but we want to allow schools greater flexibility to use imaginative, collaborative arrangements, including the sharing of staff where that is appropriate, in order to raise standards.
	Amendments Nos. 147 and 153 concern head teachers. I hope that I can provide the reassurance for which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, searches. Clauses 34(5)(d) and 35(5)(e) already provide scope to include provisions in staffing regulations which confer functions on LEAs in respect of the appointment of head teachers.
	We intend to include in staffing regulations the current position of local education authorities in respect of the appointment of head teachers. Those include the scope for LEAs to advise governing bodies about the appointment of head teachers and an entitlement for the LEAs to make representations to governing bodies where they consider any candidates for head teacher vacancies are unsuitable. In the case of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools, the advisory role of the LEA would, as now, be subject to advisory rights being agreed with the governing bodies of each such school.
	Amendments Nos. 145, 146, 151 and 152 seek to insert that the Secretary of State "shall" instead of "may" make staffing regulations. The amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to make particular provisions on all the matters identified in Clauses 34(5) and 35(5). As to the appointment of a head teacher, we believe that we are justified in taking a detailed approach in the interests of educational standards. We shall make provision on this matter in staffing regulations with further details and guidance. However, we may want over time to move other detailed matters to guidance.
	Regulations could ignore minor matters and those effectively covered in general employment and good practice. They could take a detailed approach to important school-specific matters where the general employment law does not suffice. We need an enabling provision to achieve that. That is why we believe that "may" rather than "shall" is the most appropriate drafting.
	The policy statement which sets out our intentions under Clauses 34 and 35 is available in the Library of your Lordships' House. We shall in due course consult representatives of all interested parties about proposals for the final content of the regulations.
	Amendment No. 144A seeks to make a radical change to the staffing arrangement for community voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools. It removes the general arrangements for staff at these schools to be employed under contracts of employment with the local education authority. As the noble Baroness has said, this provision for employment by the LEA would only come into force where such a school failed to satisfy Ofsted as to its general standard of education and school management.
	Community schools already have the option of seeking to become foundation schools and so taking on the rights of employment. Most have chosen not to do so and to remain with the arrangement whereby most staff are employed under contracts with the local education authority. That is their choice. Forcing them to take on direct employment responsibilities could be potentially damaging for the stability and success of those schools.
	The staffing of schools accounts for the greatest cost in the funding of schools. It is important that resources are spent wisely in accordance with good practice and with appropriate professional advice. It is important that all schools have workable and effective staffing arrangements. Suddenly applying those measures when schools fall into failure will not make much difference in the short term. It would be far better to have arrangements which help schools to avoid failing in the first place.
	Good employment practice produces results over the long term. Bad or inappropriate appointments made over the years, poor management of staff and inadequate professional advice, are not matters which can be turned around quickly. Getting the matter right in the long term is more effective than hasty measures when the damage has been done. The amendment makes it more likely for schools to stumble into failure because it takes away the checks and balances that can pick up danger signals and keep staffing arrangements in the bounds of good employment practice.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 149. For similar reasons I do not support the amendment. It leaves foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools to their own devices in deciding arrangements for staffing. They would be left largely unaccountable and free to carry out those responsibilities in whatever way they saw fit until they fell—if they fell—into failure, when of course it would be too late to prevent failure caused by bad staffing practices.
	Those schools are state maintained. It is right that basic arrangements for good practice and receiving appropriate professional advice should apply to them. Two examples of the kind of provision that will be covered in regulations and guidance help to highlight this aspect. The selection of a head teacher is of course the most important decision that a school takes. Getting the right person and someone who will be able to work effectively with the governing body is the bedrock of any successful school. Regulations and guidance will ensure that the selection of a head is conducted in a consistent way for all schools, following appropriate advertisement and so on.
	On the question of professional advice, the local education authority will have entitlement to make representations to the governing body about unsuitable applications or where there is serious concern about the performance of a serving head teacher. In addition, and as applies at present, the local education authority will be able to agree advisory rights on all teacher appointments and dismissals. It is important that all schools are subject to those arrangements to ensure that the matters are handled appropriately and consistently.
	Amendments Nos. 146A and 152A deal with the question of provision and regulations for staff otherwise than under a contract of employment. The amendments prevent the Secretary of State making regulations which deal with the appointment of teachers and other staff, otherwise than under contracts of employment with the LEA or governing body as the case may be. The regulations are intended to establish safeguards to ensure that schools act consistently and with good practice. We shall be consulting on the necessary arrangements for the employment of staff otherwise than under a contract of employment. But our overarching intention is to give schools the scope to use effectively services provided in this way.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B—

Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has not returned to my fundamental question: who is employed at a school otherwise than under a contract of employment? To my knowledge, that could cover only voluntary labour. It is not a sessional worker, a part-time worker and/or a full-time teacher or full-time member of staff.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thought that I answered that within my first grouping when I described those who worked as cleaners or for the provision of meals, which are contracted out services. People who come into a school from a different school or a further education establishment, or—in looking at the world of information technology—people who may be employed on a different basis other than a contract of employment to provide services to the school are examples. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I did cover the matter earlier.

Baroness Blatch: It does not cover the matter because Clause 35(5)(b) states that,
	"teachers and other staff to work at a school otherwise than under a contract of employment".
	That is not "a contract of employment to the school", but "otherwise than under a contract of employment". Anyone coming in to work at a school, whether a caretaker, cleaner, someone to mend the roof or someone to put some tarmac down in the playground, is someone who would be "under a contract", which is the actual wording on the Bill, but not necessarily under a contract to the school as the employer.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My understanding, having taken legal advice, is that the way that the amendment is framed would mean that those people would have to be under a contract of employment to a school and that people who work, for example, providing a consultancy or advisory service on technical aspects of information and communications technology may not be under a specific contract of employment. They may be self-employed individuals who give their services to a company with whom a school may sub-contract. The way that the amendment is phrased means that we would have to have contracts of employment. We are trying to ensure that schools are able to develop flexible arrangements, with which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees, under which people can work within schools under different arrangements from those of a contract of employment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her replies, which are inevitably complex because they relate to a complex set of amendments. I return to the issue of agency or contract staff employed at schools whose contract of employment is with a different employer. Regulations lay down terms for the governance of the school. School governors must follow them for employment of staff.
	The distinction that we were trying to make in Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 is between those who are under the direction of a head, who will have a contract of employment either with the LEA or with the governing body itself, and those who are under the direction of someone else, because they are employed by someone else. That is a useful distinction to make, which is why we tabled the amendments. I am not totally convinced by the Minister's answer on that point, and we shall need to return to the issue. I shall not press the amendments but we shall probably table them again on Report to tease out the issue a little further.
	The Minister's answer about the other amendments was somewhat more reassuring. I take her point about the "may"s and "shall"s. We now have the policy statement, so we have some idea of the terms of the regulations. That is reassuring to the National Association of Head Teachers. One can understand why it is worried by the provision and it is important that it has clear guidance. That is why we tabled those amendments.
	On the amendments relating to local education authorities and the appointment of heads, I take on board the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Local authorities have an advisory role but perhaps not an appointment role. We tabled the amendments to make the point that that advisory role should be maintained. The Minister's reassurances answer that point. I shall not press those amendments.

Baroness Blatch: It may save time if I return to my amendments now rather than wait until they are called in numerical order. I think that I was satisfied by one of the Minister's answers, but I shall read it to make sure. That concerned whether a community school, a maintained nursery school a community special school or a voluntary-controlled school could opt to become a foundation school, which would give it more freedom. But the Minister then negated that point by saying in relation to Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B that there was a good case for the provision in Schedule 2, Part 2, which states:
	"The arrangements for the staffing of the school shall be determined by the local education authority",
	for foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools. It continues:
	"Except with the consent of the authority, the governing body shall not . . . appoint any teacher to work at the school, or . . . dismiss any teacher at the school".
	I am not sure that I totally understand the Minister's point, other than that it was important that local education authorities kept some control because those are state-funded schools. My understanding was that foundation, voluntary and voluntary-aided schools had the freedom to appoint their own staff. Indeed, that was the argument used by the Minister to argue against my point about community, voluntary-controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools. So I am in a quandary.
	I am bamboozled by what the Minister said about those who work at a school otherwise than under a contract. People who work in schools are under some form of contract, whether they are sessional or part-time workers of some kind or full-time staff. That applies whether they are caretakers, cleaners, catering staff, teachers or head teachers. As the Minister rightly said, other people work in schools who are under contract—who may have a maintenance contract for technical equipment. Other people provide supply teachers to the school. All sorts of other advisory people may work in the school. It is right that the school has a view about how they carry out their work on school premises and how they relate to the children.
	But my understanding of how that works legally is that the contract drawn up by the agency that provides staff or with the company that provides the service to the school includes within it the constraints that will govern how those people will work on the premises and that there is no need to overlay that with another set of regulations that operate outside the direct contract of a school with either the commercial company, the voluntary sector or the teacher supply agency. So I am not entirely convinced.
	If the noble Baroness is right—and I question whether she is—that "otherwise than under a contract" applies to anyone not directly employed by the school, the wording should be "otherwise than those directly employed under contract by the school". They will all be under a contract of employment with some concern—either their own employer, their agency or whatever. The contract between a school and the employer or agency will be where all the constraints and regulations should be imposed.
	So I am unhappy with some of the Minister's responses and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I think that we shall return to the matter.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: On the other hand, I am relatively happy with the carefully crafted words of the Minister in response to my queries. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for conceding the point about subsection (5)(e). I do not want anything that I said to be misunderstood as being against the proper partnership between the LEA and voluntary schools. I regard that as important, not least because of the educational advice that the LEA can provide on the appointment of head teachers and staff. I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, which I shall read carefully. Some complex issues have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. I shall need to consider those before deciding how to proceed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 not moved.]
	Clause 34 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 148:
	After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
	"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
	( ) In section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (application of employment law during financial delegation) there is inserted—
	"(3) No order may be made under this section so as to have the effect of denying to any person employed to work at any community, voluntary controlled, community special or maintained nursery school any of the rights he may have as an employee in respect of any power or duty imposed upon local education authorities by or under any enactment relating to employment as mentioned in subsection (1) and falling to be discharged by the authority in consequence of the operation of section 34(3) of the Education Act 2002 (staffing of community, voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools).
	(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect so as to release a local education authority from any duty imposed upon it by or under any enactment relating to employment by virtue of its status as an employer consequent upon the operation of subsection (3).""

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is another amendment that relates to employment rights. It purpose is to rectify a clear and serious anomaly in the law arising from local management of schools and its resulting three-party employment structure for teachers and other school staff. The problem was clearly identified in the courts in the case of Askew v the London Borough of Ealing. The amendment concerns the exercise of powers where a school ceases to exist as a separate entity on the occasion of a merger with another school or of its closure following a fresh start initiative.
	LEAs employ teachers other than those who work in voluntary-aided and foundation schools in the legal sense that they are party to contracts of employment. The governing bodies of community and controlled schools, however, have certain employment powers conferred on them by statute. Those powers are defined in the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999, for which Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 makes continuing provision, as powers of appointment, suspension and dismissal.
	As governing bodies of community and controlled schools are not employers, there is no transfer of staff from one employer to another in school mergers in which the schools merging are both community or controlled schools, even though the undertaking of each school is transferring from one governing body to another. The effect is the same as if there were no TUPE protections. Teachers are dismissed from their school by reason of redundancy on closure and can do nothing but hope that they will be selected for posts in the new school, all of which are deemed to be vacancies. The issue was taken up with the right honourable David Blunkett, when he was Secretary of State, after the decision in the Askew v. London Borough of Ealing case. He was advised that his powers under primary legislation did not extend to enabling him to make the necessary changes by amending the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999.
	An amendment similar to this was tabled by my honourable friend Mr Phil Willis in Committee and on Report in the other place. In his response on Report, the Minister, Mr Stephen Timms, said:
	"First, the current arrangements for dismissals in community, voluntary controlled and community special schools, which are set out in schedule 16 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, require employing local education authorities to terminate the contracts of employees where their governing bodies have made determinations that they should cease to work at their schools. That requirement ensures that the employing LEA does not have to consider, in line with normal employers' duties, alternative employment options elsewhere in the authority area, including inquiries with other schools or services, in attempting to avoid redundancies. I understand the concern about that arrangement.
	"The provisions of schedule 16 will be moved to staffing regulations under clause 34. We shall consult on the content of those regulations. In doing so, we shall give attention to the drafting of the staff dismissal provision, so that governing bodies will be required to give LEAs notice of impending redundancies. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and have to consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to terminating contracts...
	"Secondly, I will give further thought to the doubt that now surrounds some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. That judgment was clear, but its terms and explanation raised some questions. The Bill may already clarify the employment position sufficiently to ease the problem, but I am prepared to consider it further".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/2002; col. 970.]
	The amendment suggests a new formulation of the principle that might be more acceptable to the Government. However, we must know whether the Government will agree to use the opportunity to rectify the legal anomaly and put in the Bill a safeguard for teachers in such situations. Has the Minister thought further about the issue? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In so far as it seeks to protect the employment rights of school employees, the amendment is commendable. However, it would make no difference to the principles or practice of an order modifying employment enactments for the purposes of delegated staff functions of school governing bodies. The protection of employment rights was upheld in the only order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the only order made under its predecessor, Section 222 of the Education Reform Act 1988.
	I assure the Committee that we have no intention of introducing an order that might diminish pre-existing employment rights. On the contrary, the purpose of an order made under Section 81 is to give full effect to employment rights where employment powers are delegated from local education authority employers to school governing bodies. That ensures that those who take such decisions are properly accountable for them under employment law.
	The order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that currently applies does not diminish the employment rights of staff. Nor does it release any employer from duties imposed by employment enactments. Local education authority employers do not carry out all employer functions if a school is operating with delegated powers, but the authority still has a role in advising governing bodies. Depending on the circumstances, the authority may be made an additional party to proceedings if an employment tribunal application has been made against a governing body.
	The amendment is unnecessary. In asking the noble Baroness to withdraw it, I reinforce the assurance given in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for School Standards about the rights of school staff employed by LEAs when redundancies are in prospect. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and must consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to termination of contracts, when governing bodies no longer need any of their staff. That position is not the result of an order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but of a staffing provision in Schedule 16 to that Act, which this Bill will repeal and replace with regulations and statutory guidance issued under Clause 34.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards said that we would give further thought to the doubts that surround some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. We have carefully examined transfers of staff between schools in the light of that judgment and the questions that it raised. Practical experience of current staffing arrangements does not make a clear case that there is a problem in that area. In addition, we consider that the provision for staffing arrangements in Clauses 34 and 35 will remove any adverse effects on employment rights. We will consult on the regulations and statutory guidance to be issued under those clauses before they come into effect. We will, of course, listen carefully to any representations that we receive concerning the protection of the employment rights of staff. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the fact that she feels that the provisions of Clauses 34 and 35 and the regulations to be made under them will be sufficient.
	It is, as the Minister will agree, a complex issue. We will examine her answer carefully and think about whether we need to come back to her directly or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
	[Amendments Nos. 149 to 153 not moved.]
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Effect on staffing of suspension of delegated budget]:
	[Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 24, leave out lines 3 to 6.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 155:
	Page 24, line 10, leave out "or a maintained nursery school"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 155, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 156. They are probing amendments. There are several inconsistencies in the Bill relating to the definition and status of nursery schools. We would like to know, quite simply, whether the various provisions apply to maintained nursery schools, rather than debate whether the application of the Bill's provision would bring benefits or disadvantages to nursery schools.
	I shall give detail of the places where clarification is needed. I am aware that the Minister has had notice of that. In Clauses 1 to 4, the measures on innovation appear to apply to nursery schools. Is that correct?
	In Chapter 2, Clauses 5 to 9, we assumed that earned autonomy does not apply. Why is that? In Chapter 3, Clauses 10 to 12, are we correct in believing that the measures about companies apply? In Part 2, we wonder whether Clauses 13 to 17 in relation to grants apply.
	In Part 3, Chapter 1, do the measures on the government of maintained schools apply to nursery schools? In Chapter 2, on the financing of maintained schools, will nursery school funding be part of the local education authority's school budget and the individual school's budget, as defined under Clause 39?
	In Chapter 3, Clause 44, will nursery schools be represented on admissions forums? Am I right in assuming that Clause 49 on exclusions applies? Does Clause 50 relating to attendance targets apply, even though it is ridiculous to set attendance targets for non-compulsory education?
	In Part 4, we believe that Clause 51 applies, but what about Clauses 52 to 56, which appear not to apply? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clarification on that.
	In Part 5, does Clause 69 apply? I assume that Clause 70 applies to nursery schools and that they can be part of a federation school.
	There are places where Parts 6 and 7 apply where relevant. I assume that all of Part 8 applies, but is there any clause in Part 8 which does not apply to nursery schools?
	I presume that Part 9 on childcare and nursery education applies. I assume that Part 10 applies where relevant.
	In Part 11, does Clause 179 apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools? We presume that it does but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. Are there any implications in terms of the provision of free school meals to part-time pupils in maintained nursery schools? Do Clauses 197 and 198 apply? I understand that they amend previous legislation to make way for the foundation stage, so clearly they affect nursery schools?
	What are the implications in Clause 200 for the recoupment of funds to nursery schools? Does primary education in this clause at page 121, line 38, include education in nursery schools? I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise only to support the noble Baroness in asking those questions. Reading the Bill, it seems impossible to ascertain what does and does not apply. Maintained nursery schools are specifically mentioned in some parts of the Bill, but in other parts they are not. In some cases, therefore, it is implicit that they are included and it is seen fit to put that on the face of the Bill. However, it is important to ensure that we know what parts of the Bill pertain and have an impact on which category of school.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am in a little difficulty. The question is whether it would be more appropriate to write to the two noble Baronesses who have raised the points—I could certainly do that—or whether they and the Committee have the patience for me to deal in detail with all the questions that were asked. They were asked in advance and I believe that I have the answers to hand.
	If that is the wish of the Committee, I will gladly do that while prefacing what will be an inordinately long reply by saying that the intention behind the Bill is to bring nursery schools within the scope of the governing body in school management requirements in Part 3. We have been out to extensive consultation on this matter and had an overwhelming response in favour of the broad framework.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister goes any further, it may be helpful to him to know that I shall be content for him to write to me about the detail of my amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to add a sour note but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has done some painstaking work in asking the questions and it is important that they should receive an answer. We in the Chamber are self-indulgent but another body of people is most interested in the answers. If we receive a letter from the Minister, that will be helpful to us in improving our understanding, but the answers will not be a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, for the sake of the record it is important that the answers are given in the Chamber. Those who are concerned and who ultimately will be affected by the clauses will then be able to read the Government's response.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am of a puritanical rather than self-indulgent frame of mind, so here goes!
	The first question related to the power to innovate, earned autonomy and school companies. It is the case that maintained nursery schools are explicitly identified as qualifying schools. That is to be found on page 2, line 13, in Chapter 1 of the Bill.
	As regards Chapter 2, Clauses 5 to 9, the noble Baroness asked whether earned autonomy applies and why. Maintained nursery schools are not judged against normal performance/leadership criteria. The flexibilities under earned autonomy are limited to teachers' pay and conditions and the national curriculum. There is no freedom for maintained nursery schools in relation to the foundation stage of the national curriculum and therefore there is little to be gained by maintained nursery schools qualifying for earned autonomy.
	On Chapter 3, Clauses 10 to 12, the noble Baroness asked whether the powers to form companies applies. Yes, those provisions do apply. Clause 10(8) defines "maintained school" to include maintained nursery schools. As regards Part 2 relating to new grant-making powers, the noble Baroness asked whether Clauses 13 to 17 apply. Yes, all those clauses apply. I think that is an obvious point.
	On Part 3, Chapter 1, the provisions apply to the government of maintained schools. Clause 37(1) defines "maintained school" to include maintained nursery schools for Clauses 18 to 38. Clause 27(3) and (4) make one exception regarding the power to send pupils elsewhere for training.
	On Chapter 2, the financing of maintained schools, the noble Baroness asked whether nursery school funding will be part of the local education authority's school budget and individual school's budget, as defined under Clause 39. Yes, paragraph 99 of Schedule 21 amends the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
	The noble Baroness asked whether nursery schools will be represented on admissions forums, dealt with in Chapter 3, Clause 44. No, they will not. Again, that is an obvious point. As she said, Clause 49 relating to exclusions and the power of head teachers to exclude pupils, does apply, but she asked whether Clause 50 relating to attendance targets applies. No, Clause 50 does not apply. As the noble Baroness indicated, it would be rather ridiculous to set attendance requirements for pupils who are not under a statutory obligation to attend.
	On Part 4 relating to the powers of intervention, the noble Baroness said that Clause 51 setting out the duty to notify where inspection shows schools causing concern applies but asked whether Clauses 52 to 56 apply. Clauses 52 to 56 do indeed apply. Paragraph 92 of Schedule 21 amends the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
	As regards Part 5 on school organisation, Clauses 62 to 68 do not apply. Clause 69 proposes alteration by the governing bodies of community schools. Nursery schools are not community schools, so that does not apply.
	The noble Baroness presumed that Clause 70 on proposals to establish a federated school does apply as nursery schools can be part of a federation of schools. Indeed they can and therefore those provisions apply also to nursery schools.
	In Parts 6 and 7, the curriculum in England and Wales, it is correct that that applies where it is relevant. Part 9 relating to childcare and nursery education also applies.
	I believe that I have dealt with the main points that the noble Baroness raised. However, if there are additional questions to which she needs answers I have one or two additional points in my brief. I was not sure whether in her long list of questions she had covered everything.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I also asked whether Clause 179 would apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools. Perhaps he could respond to that point.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise to the noble Baroness. She did indeed raise the point with me whether student loans, covered in Clause 179, would apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools. It would depend on the regulations governing the loans.
	The noble Baroness also asked about LEA functions with regard to school lunches, school milk provision and so forth. In response to her question about whether there are any implications in terms of the provision of free school meals to part-time pupils in nursery schools, the clause would remove the entitlement of children whose attendance does not span the lunchtime period. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that that is reasonable. This was done in response to LEA concerns about the impracticality of meeting the requirement when the child is not in school or the school is not open.
	Any children currently receiving free school meals will of course be protected. Children currently attending stand-alone nurseries are not entitled to free school meals. The Bill rectifies that where such children attend over the lunchtime period. In due course, when funds become available in the period 2004–05, the entitlement will also be extended to non-maintained settings.
	I hope that those responses have now covered most of the points raised by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: I realise that it may have been tiresome for the noble Lord to have to go into such detail, but it is extremely helpful for those who follow our debates to know exactly what are the Government's responses to all the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	I turn to the response that the Minister has just given to the noble Baroness in regard to student loans. My understanding from every policy statement made by the Government when referring to concessionary arrangements for teachers was that they were related to specific subjects. Indeed, those subjects have even been named. Given that people in nursery schools do not teach specific subjects as such, then when the noble Lord said that it would depend on the regulations, the policy does not include nursery school teachers. Should I take it from the noble Lord's response that the policy might be extended or that the Government are about to make another announcement?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I may have been slightly less precise than I ought with regard to the regulations on student loans. As the noble Baroness will know only too well, the issue is that the loans are subject to very significant revision and review which is being carried out by the department at the present time. However, I do not want to raise the hopes of the noble Baroness that we have extended the criteria in this respect. That is not the case.

Baroness Blatch: My interpretation is not the central issue here, but I think that teachers in nursery education may well have misinterpreted what the noble Lord has said; namely, that this is all about regulations. In fact, I understand that it is about pending policy.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Lord for his detailed answers. I should like to study them before seeking to respond and consider whether any of these issues will need to be brought back on Report.
	I wish to make only one comment. The noble Lord said that under Clause 44 in Chapter 3, nursery schools will not be represented on admissions forums. It will be well known to Members of the Committee that the notion of schools forums is not much favoured by noble Lords on these Benches. However, we feel that if they do come into existence, then maintained nursery schools should be represented on them. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Page 24, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 38 agreed to.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 159:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"RELIGIOUS GUIDANCE
	(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 91 (special arrangements to preserve religious character of foundation or voluntary aided school) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Before proposing any special arrangements, and at intervals of no more than five years where such special arrangements are in force, the governing body shall take note of any relevant guidance issued by any religious authorities which the governing body acknowledges as having influence over the school.""

Lord Lucas: I wish to begin by saying that I do not have any particular attachment to the wording of this amendment. It seeks more to find out what might be possible rather than to provide a recipe for a particular solution. I wish also to say that I am a strong believer in the right and the desirability of having religious foundation schools in this country. They make a great contribution to our nation's education system.
	However, by such a school I refer to one in which the teaching and ethos of the school accord with a particular religious point of view. I do not see that that has to imply that the school becomes a ghetto which only members of that religion can attend. It may appeal to some, but I think that in certain circumstances that may be quite a destructive way to run a school, in particular for local communities. For myself, I cannot see why an adherence of, say, over 50 per cent to a particular religion plus control over the religious beliefs of the key teaching staff should not suffice to ensure that a school is run according to a particular religious ethos. In going any further than that, a school in the maintained sector ought to take account of the effect that becoming a religious ghetto has on the surrounding community.
	In the course of my business as the publisher of the Good Schools Guide, I have seen a large number of parents become extremely upset when they found that they had been excluded from their neighbouring schools. This can take place from inner-city London to leafy Hertfordshire. It is extremely difficult, when it so happens that your local school is one religion and you are not, that you then have to go a long way to locate what may be considered to be a less good school. This is now happening in the maintained sector. We do not have religious hospitals and we do not have party political schools. The system in a sense imposes a considerable inconvenience on those who are not of a particular religion. The question then arises: is such inconvenience and hurt to the local community justified by the freedom which we choose to accord to religions to run state schools?
	When the Bill was considered in another place, amendments were tabled, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats proposing that there should be regulations covering what proportion of a school's intake could be selected on religious grounds. I cannot see how that would work in practice. How can that be judged when one is sitting in the centre? When dealing with a particular case on the ground, it might not matter. It might be perfectly acceptable for a particular school to comprise entirely one religion. That may not cause any noticeable diminution of the educational opportunities for the rest of the community. For myself, I cannot see that it matters that the London Oratory is entirely Catholic. It is easy to travel around London and gain access to many other schools. I cannot see that it is important to regulate to ensure that half the pupils in JFS should not be Jewish.
	On the other hand, there are schools in leafy Hertfordshire which used to be open to all religions, but are now closed to all but one faith. Considerable local upset has been caused. This must be something for local decision and, again, I do not see why this power should be given to local education authorities because that would go against the whole thrust of how we are seeking to introduce greater freedom for schools. My personal inclinations, too, err towards greater freedom for schools.
	I look on the amendment as another way of tackling the problem. When this point was discussed in the debate on Second Reading, the Bishops were loud in their belief that there was a social dimension to their mandate, that they did have to take the effect on local communities into account, that local opinion was important to them and that it would influence how they wanted to run their schools. I believe that that is also as true of the Roman Catholic Church, as it is true of the one or two Muslim schools with which I have had opportunity to discuss this matter.
	Given that that is the case and given that these major religions will account for the great majority of religion-based schools, and that Parliament and the media have ways of influencing what attitude the great religions will take towards the schooling of which they are in charge, it would be right to use those means to seek to change the way in which some Church schools have closed their doors to certain other religions and thus to have an effect on the disadvantages that that policy has brought to local communities.
	I should like a system whereby the Churches have a power over the schools within their flock. They should be able to ask those schools to have regard to guidance which they had formulated on balancing the needs of the religion to which their members are adherents and those of the local community. They should be able to ask the governing body, not too frequently, to come to a decision based on that guidance. It should be of sufficient comfort if we are then able to take the Church of England or any other Church to task in the context of any perceived hurt as a result of putting that guidance into practice.
	We should not try to regulate centrally on how religious schools manage their intake. From what was said at Second Reading, I believe that such a system would produce a situation with which I felt comfortable. I hope that we do not have to go down the road proposed as regards regulation. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: As my noble friend spoke, I was at times on his side and at times not so certain. I came full circle. My noble friend makes an interesting proposition. I agree that this is not an area for regulation.
	The truth is that there are faith schools. Parents of children of a particular faith, Muslim, Catholic or Anglican, would expect to be given access to a school of that faith. They would be very upset if there were some form of quota system—I understand that my noble friend is against that—which determined by informal or formal methods that X per cent of the school shall be made available to children not of that faith and that only a certain percentage of children of the faith could be received into the school. It is a stepping stone to schools becoming secular rather than faith schools. Therefore, I have difficulty on that point.
	I have difficulty also as regards regulations, as proposed in an amendment in another place. First, there are a large number of faith schools in our country—Jewish, Catholic, Anglican and Muslim. They offer places predominantly to children of the faith of those schools. However, there has been a tradition, in particular in the Anglican Church, for places to be made available to children who live in the local area. Many faith schools have a good record of receiving children who are not of the faith but whose parents wish them to be educated in a school with a Christian, Muslim or Jewish ethos.
	I visited the King David school, an exceptionally good school in Liverpool. I understand that fewer than half the children who attend the school are of the Jewish faith. Therefore, more than half are not of the Jewish faith. In addition to the national curriculum which all those schools are required to follow, there is a distinct Jewish ethos. One walks out of that school feeling very good about education. There is an exceptional mentoring system. The ethos within the school is exceptional. There is clearly a generous approach to young people of that area being accepted into the school.
	I assume, because I do not know, that places are made available to children not of the Jewish faith because there are not enough children of the Jewish faith to take those places. I should like priority to be given to children of that faith who wish to take those places rather than having them taken by children of other faiths. The same argument applies to Anglican, Catholic and Muslim schools.
	With regard to Muslim schools, I am not certain whether doors are opened similarly to children not of the Muslim faith. My caveat is that there are few of those schools and they are in areas of high Muslim population. Therefore, it is likely that those schools would have almost 100 per cent of children of the Muslim faith.
	Equally, I have visited an exceptional school in the Tower Hamlets area, headed by the partner of Chris Woodhead. Ninety-something per cent of the children were of the Muslim faith; yet it was not a faith school. Respect for and accommodation of the faith of those children was managed well by that school.
	It is a sensitive issue. I do not believe that we should go down the road of quota systems. Nor should we follow the road proposed in the amendment passed in another place. I agree with my noble friend. I believe that there is scope for the Churches—it will be interesting to hear the right reverend Prelate if he speaks on the amendment—and faith groups themselves to consider the policy which they operate not only to meet the needs of the people of their faith in the area but also those of children of other or no faith.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I had intended to intervene in debate on this part of the Bill. I am not clear whether the noble Lord favours faith schools but he seeks to be helpful. Unfortunately, the amendment is too vague to achieve his aim, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	Like the noble Baroness, I vacillated in my appreciation of what he said. The introduction of words such as "religious ghetto" is extremely unhelpful. If one wants to use the word "ghetto" about schools, there are ghetto schools in almost every class of school. Community schools serve socially deprived or socially elite local communities, and so on. I would resist that phrase.
	Most faith schools are community schools serving the local community, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican. That would be equally true of the few Muslim schools. For some of us the difficulty arises with regard to secondary education. As there are so few such schools the kind of things which the noble Lord described can happen. On these Benches, we do not believe that a quota system of percentages would be helpful. That would push the problem a little further down the line. One would still have to make awkward and difficult decisions. What would be best in one neighbourhood would not be best necessarily in another.
	However, the noble Lord may have noticed that a further amendment has been tabled as regards this matter; namely, Amendment No. 211 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, which would deal with this question as far as concerns Anglican schools. We have deliberately asked the department, the Government, to make provision for Anglican schools in the light of criticisms that have been made about admissions policies being what I would call "eccentric" in some schools, or perhaps determined not to listen to local need, so that the diocese would have at least some part to play in that process. It is for others to say whether that kind of arrangement would be suitable to other faith communities. No doubt some noble Lords will be able to enter into that debate.
	I would resist this amendment on the grounds that it is too vague. I urge the Committee to support Amendment No. 211, which our authorities have carefully negotiated with the Government. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties involved. Many people who are supporters of such schools would press the local initiative of the local governors. We must be careful that we are not, as it were, speaking double-speak: on one set of proposals we want the most local input that we can get, while on the other we want to bring in other people. It would be helpful if governors of Anglican schools had, in some way, to listen and have regard to advice given by the diocesan authority. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and to put his support behind Amendment No. 211.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The name of the Liberal Democrats has been mentioned on a number of occasions; indeed, we were party to a series of amendments put forward both in Committee and on Report in the other place that did propose a quota system. However, the debate that took place in another place and which, subsequently, took place both within our party and within other forums has indicated that that is not the right way forward. That is why we have not tabled a similar amendment in this Chamber.
	I do not know whether noble Lords have noticed, but we have tabled an amendment under the clause dealing with admission forums; namely, Amendment No. 178A. The amendment was put down rather late, and, arguably, ought to have been grouped with the amendment now under discussion. I apologise to the Committee for failing to spot the connection. Our amendment suggests a slightly different way forward. It relates to the admission forums, which cover all maintained schools and, therefore, all voluntary-aided schools, foundation schools, as well as voluntary-controlled and community schools. The amendment proposes that a voluntary-aided school that is a faith-based school should make clear to the admission forum the proportion of pupils coming forward from a particular faith.
	Our amendment would also place some responsibility on the admission forum to take account of local need and the demand for faith-based places locally. I believe that it is a fairly bland amendment; it does not seek to push such proposals. However, it raises the issue that exercised people's minds when the discussion took place in the other place; namely, that such schools are substantially funded by the state, from the public purse—indeed, to the tune of 100 per cent in relation to current revenue costs. Of course, part of the capital funding comes from the Churches, which, as the right reverend Prelate said, recognise the need to serve the local community. There seems to be some inequity if some schools are excluding would-be pupils who are living right next door because they are not of that particular faith, despite the fact that a wish has been expressed to attend that school. The issue of proximity must sometimes be taken into account.
	Although Amendment No. 178A has a somewhat different approach to the matter, it relates to the same issue that we believe needs to be aired; namely, the question of serving the community and, to some extent, the availability of some school places for the local community. That is precisely what the majority of faith-based schools try to achieve. Indeed, the inequity arises in a small minority of cases. That is why we have put forward our amendment.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her observations. I am pleased to note the change in tone and, indeed, of direction from that which dominated our earlier debates on the subject. I agree that it would have been helpful if Amendment No. 178A had perhaps been grouped with the amendment now before the Committee. That would have enabled the debate to be taken in its entirety at this point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is well intentioned in placing his amendment before the Committee today, but the reason for the tension on this question goes back to our Second Reading debate and the discussion on the role of faith schools in our society. Indeed, it does not just go back to the Second Reading debate, or to the debate that took place in another place; it goes right back into the mists of time. Similarly, I can tell noble Lords from my former party that this is not a new argument for them. It was Mr Gladstone who said:
	"As to its politics, this country has much less, I think, to fear than to hope; unless through a corruption of its religion—against which, as Conservative or Liberal, I can perhaps say I have striven all my life long".
	That, in turn, led to the great debate at the turn of the 20th century, which found Hilaire Belloc, who was then a Liberal Member of Parliament and a Catholic, leading some 80,000 people in a protest to the Royal Albert Hall against his own party and government when the charge was being made that any contribution towards the new schools for poor Irish immigrants would be "Rome on the rates". Echoes of that debate emerged during the 20th century in, for example, the debates on the Education Act 1944. Indeed, such questions return to visit us from time to time.
	There have been arguments over Jewish schools, and now the discussion has moved to Muslim schools. I was especially pleased to hear the remarks made by the noble Baroness on the King David High School in Liverpool, which served many of the people who I represented when I was a constituency Member of Parliament for that city. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that that school has always served people from many walks of life, and from different backgrounds. The authorities of that school would say very clearly that it is a Jewish school, and that that is its great strength. Its ethos is a Jewish ethos. If others wish to participate in that, they are welcome to do so. I know that this amendment does not seek to do so, but to dilute its ethos—as emerged in the previous debate—would be quite the wrong way to proceed. Indeed, it would alienate many people throughout the country who passionately support the provision of Church schools.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will know that there are others who have taken a much tougher line on such matters. For example, the former education spokesman for her party in another place said that, in an ideal world, there would be no religious state schools. He went on to say that his party would put a stop to the daily act of worship. I fundamentally disagreed with him at the time; he knows that, and we corresponded on the subject. I do not think that it is an "ideal world" to prevent people from being able to send their child to a school with a religious ethos. It would diminish all of us if we removed such practices as the daily act of worship from our schools. It is most important for us to transmit our cultural values from generation to generation.
	As the right reverend Prelate said earlier, I also believe that it is something of a caricature to talk about schools as though they are "ghetto schools"—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The schools that I visit throughout the country that are run by different Churches and faiths serve many people from beyond their own communities, but they have their own identity because of the community from which they have sprung. The facts bear out what I am saying. There is no need to impose a quota along the lines suggested in the Liberal Democrat amendment in another place—for example, that 25 per cent of places should go to people from other faiths. In the United Kingdom 20 per cent of pupils in Catholic schools happen not to be Catholic.
	The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in places like Hertfordshire is true. In the Westminster archdiocese and in that of both Liverpool and Salford, demand for Catholic places is extremely high and will often outstrip the supply. More than 90 per cent of pupils in those dioceses tend to be Catholic, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In the Birmingham archdiocese, for instance, 27.1 per cent of pupils are non-Catholic; in the Clifton diocese, which serves the Avon and Bristol areas, the figure is 30.1 per cent; in Hallam in the Sheffield area it is 32.6 per cent; in Plymouth 39.5 per cent; and in the Wrexham diocese it is 24.9 per cent.
	Everyone knows that in some situations and in certain areas we may be approaching a position where the character and the ethos of a school can be radically altered if the proportions become too unbalanced. This is why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that we should approach this issue with great discretion and trust the people on the ground to make the right decision. We should not have a regimented approach.
	During the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, promised an amendment at this stage which would be based on catchment areas. I am delighted that that amendment has not so far appeared on the Marshalled List because its effect would be to create a situation where the ability to buy a house in close proximity to a particular school would be the one reason why someone would be able to get into that school. It would not be on the basis of someone's faith, commitment, social need or the desirability of having a place in that school, but because that person could move there. It would mean replacing the sensitively worked-out approach which is pragmatically being applied on the ground with something far more arbitrary and socially damaging.
	I believe the Government have got it right. I welcome the approach that the Minister has taken to this whole issue. It is a sensitive question but she has acted in accordance with the concordat that was made in 1944 between the Churches and the state by the government of the day. The Government are entitled to our support on these questions today.
	But we do have to address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, one of which was the need for shared civic values. We have a right in our society to ask Church schools and schools of other faiths, "Are you teaching children in your schools to share the same civic values as the rest of us?". If a shared love of democracy, our civic institutions and the upholding of the rule of law is not being taught, we have a perfect right to ask questions. If the schools are not teaching the value of diversity, pluralism and respect, again we have a right to ask questions about that.
	But my experience of such schools is that they do indeed promote precisely those things. In the City of Liverpool last night, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, was present at a lecture at the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall. Eight bishops were present—four Roman Catholic and four Anglican. The sight of the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Patrick Kelly, was a great metaphor in itself of the progress that has been made in that once sectarian city and of the way in which Church schools have become the engine for that kind of rapprochement between people who were divided at one time and living in, if you like, twin houses of hate. The schools in our city—more than 40 per cent of which are Church schools—have played a very important part in achieving that.
	Last night, children from some of those Church schools were receiving awards for their engagement in the civic life of the city. One of the young men present was a Young Conservative, James Maudsley, a human rights activist who went out to Burma. He is the product of a local faith school. We can all be enormously proud of him, having read in the newspapers how Aung San Suu Kyi, that marvellous beacon of democracy in Burma, was paying tribute to the risks that he took with his life, motivated and fired as he was by his faith. Another dimension is sometimes given to people as a result of their upbringing through our faith schools, so the use of the term "ghetto" in describing those faith schools is disingenuous.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was wrong to say that we do not have religious hospitals. We do have hospitals which are run by religious orders. There is one in the constituency that I represented previously in another place which serves the wider community. Religious institutions are part of the web and weave of our lives in every respect. We should value that, uphold it and ensure that they continue to prosper.
	If the amendment were incorporated into the Bill, it would have a practical effect which may be undesirable from the noble Lord's own point of view. The amendment suggests that notice should be taken of,
	"any relevant guidance issued by any religious authorities which the governing body acknowledges as having influence over the school".
	That does not mean that it has to act on that guidance—in that sense it is not prescriptive—but if there were to be an offending school it would be the least likely to take any notice because it is not mandatory.
	The amendment refers to "any religious authorities". What is a "religious authority"? Does it mean that if a cult—for instance, the Scientologists, the Moonies, the Children of God and so on—came along and said, "We have a child in this school and we wish you to take note of a prescription that we wish to impose on the school", would the school be required to do so under the terms of the amendment?
	Were the amendment to be incorporated it would be unhelpful to the legislation. We should go with the amendment that the Government have placed before the Committee. We should keep the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the agreement that has been carefully worked out between the Churches, the great faiths and the state. It is an agreement which is serving this country well.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this proposed amendment to Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, not least because it has allowed us to range more freely in our discussion. In responding on behalf of the Government, I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion that we will have later when the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, brings forward her amendment, but, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I wish to draw attention again to Amendment No. 211. I look forward to the debate. I hope that we will be able to find common cause within it.
	The Committee may be aware that Section 91 allows aided and foundation schools with a religious character to preserve that religious character by rejecting applications from families not of their faith or denomination. A typical Section 91 arrangement defines a limit on the number of places at a particular faith or denominational school that may go to pupils not of that faith or denomination.
	Where schools give children of a faith or denomination priority for admission and are over-subscribed with pupils of that faith or denomination, a Section 91 arrangement has no additional effect. It makes a difference in practice only where fewer children of the faith or denomination apply to the school than the arrangement envisages. If that happens, the arrangement will allow the school to keep empty those places it cannot fill with pupils of the faith or denomination, even though there may be a demand for those places from other families.
	The Government have been giving serious thought to whether Section 91 arrangements are compatible with our aim of establishing an admissions framework that ensures that as many parents' preferences as possible can be met. We believe that allowing schools to keep places empty when there is demand for them is at odds with our aim. We do not believe that it is an efficient use of resources for places to remain empty in some schools if overall demand for places in a local education authority's area can be met only by the authority having to meet the cost of providing additional school places elsewhere. Empty places mean less funding for the schools themselves and fewer resources available for children in those schools.
	In practice, there are very few Section 91 arrangements in place. Many Catholic schools and their dioceses already take the view that it is better to fill all their places by admitting children of other faiths or denominations or of no faith than to keep places empty. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, about 14 per cent of children in Roman Catholic primary schools and more than 20 per cent of children in Roman Catholic secondary schools are not Catholic.
	I am able to announce today that we shall be bringing forward an amendment at Report stage to repeal Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That will end the possibility of faith schools under-subscribed by faith adherents agreeing arrangements with their local education authority to keep places empty.
	In coming to this decision we have been very grateful for the helpful approach taken by the Roman Catholic authorities. We have discussed our decision to repeal Section 91 with these authorities and will continue to discuss with them how our decision is to be implemented. Where Roman Catholic demand has been met, they are happy for the benefits of Catholic schooling to be extended to other families who appreciate and want those benefits. I hope that the Committee will agree that repealing this section is an important contribution to ensuring access in principle to faith schools for members of other faiths or none.
	I can, however, assure the Committee that repealing Section 91 will in no way alter the rights of governing bodies of Catholic and other religious voluntary-aided or foundation schools to define their own admission criteria and priorities, and in particular to give priority admittance, if over-subscribed, to members of their faith or denomination. The Government recognise that many schools hold sincerely to the credo that they were established to serve their particular faith community and that that is where their primary responsibility lies.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will acknowledge that, in the light of my remarks, his amendment could be withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. What evidence does the department have of school places deliberately being kept vacant when others in the area who are not of that faith wish to attend those schools? What percentage of available places does that represent?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am afraid that I cannot supply the percentage, but we know that a few schools—only a few—have used these arrangements in order to keep places empty. This led to our discussions with the Roman Catholic authorities. They have been extremely helpful and are in agreement that we must work this through in a practical way which will make sense. On that basis, we believe that the proposal that we intend to bring forward on Report will enable us to ensure that where there is a demand for school places—the noble Baroness gave a good example; namely, the King David High School in Liverpool, where the demand for places far exceeds the number of children from that particular faith—the school will be kept full so that children will be able to enjoy the benefits of the quality of education in the school.
	There is no disagreement among those who currently hold places open; it is simply something that we want to move towards. If the noble Baroness would like me to write to her setting out the detail she requested, I shall do so. I apologise that I do not have the percentage in front of me.

Lord Lucas: I have been fascinated by the debate. I am delighted to hear that Amendment No. 211 will move in the direction in which I had hoped to find the Churches moving. I had presumed from the fact that it was not grouped with this amendment that that was not the case, but I shall listen to that debate with interest. I hope to hear from the Roman Catholic Church as to what it is doing of an equivalent nature. I do not know how strong a control it has over the policies pursued by its individual schools, but I very much hope that it will find a way. Not being the established Church, it does not have the advantage of our being able to legislate for it. However, I hope that we shall find that the two Churches are moving in unison.
	It is important that we do not allow, more than we absolutely have to, the development of separate communities in this country. For children to grow up without experience of anyone who is not part of their immediate community can be all right in small quantities—the world is big and the rest of the world is out there for them to see outside the school gates. However, one can see the ultimate expression of that in Northern Ireland, and the beginnings of its expression in places such as Oldham.
	It is possible for the Church school system to become part of an instrument separating a community into constituent parts which grow up without proper experience of each other. I hope that we shall not allow that to continue—particularly when we are examining the possibility of having more faith schools, which I am happy to see. We must make sure that the possible side-effects of that are not allowed to develop in this country. It depends very much on the determination of the great religions to make sure that that is not the way in which matters develop.
	Perhaps we can arrive at a position where the Churches are freely able to found new schools, as I shall advocate in a later amendment. In that way, the Churches would be sure of having more than enough places for their own adherents and the ability to draw into their schools pupils whose parents—we are talking about selection in terms of parents, not pupils—may not be members of the religion but who want their children to be brought up in the faith, which they may admire from the outside while not accepting it themselves. I was brought up on stories of Don Camillo. I remember that Peppone had his child christened after great trials and tribulations. That is an approach that we should allow as many people as possible to follow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Determination of specified budgets of LEA]:

Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: In calling Amendment No. 160, I would point out that, if it is agreed to, I shall not able to call Amendment No. 161 owing to pre-emption.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 160:
	Page 25, leave out lines 30 and 31.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving this amendment, I give notice that I shall not be speaking to Amendment No. 162 or Amendment No. 163, which we have effectively withdrawn from debate.
	We now move to the part of the Bill dealing with the setting up of schools forums, which are dealt with in Clause 39. After dealing specifically with the amendment, I want to address more generally the provisions relating to schools forums in Clauses 39 and 40.
	The Bill provides for each local authority to establish a schools forum. Most of the functions of the forum, which be made up mainly of heads and governors—it is not an elected body—will be consultative. They are set out in the draft regulations that have been circulated by the department.
	However, under Clause 39 proposed new Section 45A(4) gives a forum the power to decide classes of expenditure which can be deducted from schools budgets. Under the draft regulation circulated, the provision will relate only to relatively small categories of expenditure such as primary school meals, licences, subscriptions, museums and galleries, and library services for schools. However, further classes of expenditure could be added at any time by regulation. It is for that reason that we have great reservations about the subsection.
	As I have pointed out, the schools forum will not be an elected body. It will be an unelected body, effectively appointed at local level. For it to have the power of decision over classes of expenditure which the local authority, which is elected and is accountable to the local electorate, has traditionally decided is wrong. It is appropriate that where expenditures are made, there should be some accountable elected authority, rather than an unelected authority which takes decisions over and above those of the elected authority. The proposed amendment would provide for a schools forum to have consultative functions only. It would have no power to decide on classes of expenditure.
	That brings me to the more general discussion of Clauses 39 and 40, which set up the statutory framework for the new system of funding councils and schools in England from April 2003. Under the new system there will be separate funding assessments (standard spending assessment blocks) for expenditure on school pupils, which are deemed to be the schools budget, and the central functions of the local education authority, which will be deemed to be the LEA budget. The bulk of the schools budget will, therefore, be placed directly under the control of individual schools and will be known as the individual schools budget.
	In addition to schools forums being able to set limits or conditions on some items of expenditure, there is a new requirement to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed level of the schools budget by the end of January. The Secretary of State will have a reserve power to intervene and to impose a prescribed minimum level, in all circumstances, where the council's proposal is considered to be inadequate.
	This would have significant implications for budget setting. It would effectively require the education budget to be set to an earlier time-scale than that of other services, and would divorce spending decisions on the main local authority service from consideration of the council tax.
	The Local Government Association has been concerned by those developments. It has consistently opposed the concept of the reserved power, which is often referred to as ring-fencing. The Government have recognised some of the arguments against ring-fencing of local government expenditure. They pointed out in the finance Green Paper of September 2000 that it weakens local accountability and democracy, whereas delegating powers to local authorities encourages democracy and encourages local authorities to take their responsibilities seriously. When funds are ring-fenced, some local authorities may give less attention to their proper responsibilities for strategic planning and quality improvement of schools.
	Ring-fencing also erodes local authorities' financial responsibilities and freedoms and leads to weaker co-ordination between education and other local services, which can make a lot of difference to schools and families. It also creates pressure for ring-fencing in other services. If we ring-fence education funding, there will be calls to do the same for social services, transport and other services. That takes away from the basic democratic rights of local authorities. Already, many of their responsibilities have been eroded and taken by central government.
	If we are to get people interested in participating in democracy, they must see it as something that affects them. If all the decisions are going to be taken away, people will think that local authorities make no difference. That is already a tendency at local election time. Ring-fencing detracts in many ways from the necessary vibrancy that we ought to be trying to inject into local democracy.
	While the proposed reserved power does not constitute wholesale ring-fencing, its application would involve an erosion of local accountability and financial discretion. Although the Bill has remained unaltered after the initial stages in the Commons, we recognise that a significant number of ministerial assurances have been given that it is the Government's intention, in keeping with the local government White Paper, to reduce the number of ring-fenced and specific grants for education and to transfer resources to the general budget grant. On the specific issue of the reserved power, Ministers have said that the Secretary of State will consider the implications for other council services before setting the minimum schools budget and that the reserved power will be used very sparingly.
	Despite those assurances, there are still deep reservations on these Benches and from the Local Government Association about the move. We hope that greater consideration will be given to the general impact of these two clauses and their potential significance in relation to local democracy. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I have no hesitation in saying that the Government are the greatest guilty party on the funding of schools. An unprecedented amount of money is now top-sliced from the education budget. Initiative after initiative is made almost daily—certainly several each week. That comes from the main education budget. Then, the Government are guilty on a second count, by imposing additional burdens on local education authorities. This Bill, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and other legislation have created enormous burdens on local authorities. They all have to be paid for. The only place from which that money can come is the overall education budget. That erodes yet further the core funding that should go into our schools.
	Make no mistake, the Government are being heavy-handed in producing an unaccountable system that second-guesses local authorities. The Government, not the local authorities, are guilty. That is inexcusable and I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said about giving freedom at local level and about the whole issue of the erosion of accountability.
	I have serious reservations about the schools forums. They are not elected, but are simply established in the local area. Other bodies akin to the make-up of a schools forum already exist. Before setting a budget, most well run authorities—this is certainly the case in my own local authority in Cambridgeshire—will have roadshows to meet parents and the local community and will definitely talk with the local heads forum, the school teacher unions and the teacher representatives. There will be a great deal of discussion before the budget is finally set. The statistics show that most well run education authorities spend above their standard spending assessment on education, often at the expense of other services, because they consider education a priority at local level.
	There is no reason to regulate in this way. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wishes to press that Clause 39 should not stand part of the Bill, I shall be with her. I fully support Amendment No. 160. I am not sure what was in the noble Baroness's thinking to remove,
	"or the authority's schools forum",
	under Amendment No. 162, but I assume that those words would disappear anyway under Amendment No. 160.
	Accountability is important. The members of our local education authorities are elected and have sharp accountability with their local communities—at least until the Government in their wisdom remove them and take responsibility further away to regional government. Our schools deserve more of their share of core funding. That can come only from government initiatives to relinquish some of their propensity for holding back money at the centre.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When amendments are withdrawn on the spot, I have to adjust my speaking notes. I hope that I have got this correct. I shall speak to Amendment No. 161 and then respond to the debate on Amendment No. 160.
	As drafted, the new subsection (4)(c) has the side-effect of conferring an additional power on the Secretary of State. As well as enabling her to empower the forum to decide certain matters, it also enables her to lay down rules that need not appear in the regulations and so would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or approval. Government Amendment No. 161 corrects that position. While it may in some contexts be appropriate for a Minister to make rules in the way in which paragraph (c) would authorise, we have managed satisfactorily under the present legislation without that facility. We therefore think it right to table the amendment, which means that any rules on top-slicing that the Secretary of State wishes to make will need to be set out expressly in the regulations and laid before Parliament, as at present. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the amendment.
	No doubt we shall discuss schools forums in great detail when we reach Clause 41, but they form an important part of the debate on Amendment No. 160, so it might be helpful if I say a little about our general intentions. Clause 39 provides for the establishment of a schools budget, to contain proposed expenditure on provision for pupils, and an LEA budget, which covers the LEA's essential core functions and various services—such as special educational needs statementing and transport—which are most sensibly provided by LEAs.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, the schools forums to be established under Clause 41 are essentially advisory and consultative bodies. The functions that we intend to give them will reflect that role. However, we think that there is some limited scope for giving them a small decision-making role in respect of decisions on whether to delegate to schools certain items of expenditure within the schools budget. In reaching that decision, we have of course talked at length with the Local Government Association.
	We have in mind here meals for primary and special school pupils; museum services and library services for primary and special schools; and copyright and similar licence fees. However, we shall be consulting to see whether that list is right. Whether delegation of those items of expenditure is more desirable than LEA central funding will often depend on local circumstances. We think that schools forums can usefully reach a collective view for schools on that issue.
	For most items in which expenditure is centrally retainable, a decision to delegate will rest with the LEA, as is right and proper in the light of the authority's overall responsibility for the budget and—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, said—accountability to the electorate. This is particularly so with special educational needs because of the LEA's responsibility for ensuring that SEN requirements are fulfilled and the often volatile nature of budgets for that responsibility. We therefore do not at this stage intend any significant extension of the list that I have set out. I hope that that reassurance, and the Government's willingness to introduce Amendment No. 161, will enable the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to withdraw Amendment No. 160.
	As noble Lords are aware, Clause 39 modifies the framework within which LEAs fund their schools. The "Fair Funding" framework, based on a broadly defined local schools budget, has worked well. It has improved the school funding system's transparency, and the level of financial delegation to schools has risen sharply. On average, LEAs delegated more than 86 per cent of their budget last year, compared with 79 per cent in 1998. What "Fair Funding" has not addressed is the way in which LEAs themselves are funded.
	The present arrangements for funding LEAs through the education spending assessment have attracted widespread criticism. Under existing local government finance legislation, we shall replace the education standard spending assessment with two separate spending needs assessments—a "school" assessment and an "LEA" assessment. I shall not go into more detail on that now as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has explained the point extremely well.
	Clause 39 brings the school funding system into line with the new LEA funding system by establishing a "schools budget" and an "LEA budget" instead of the current "local schools budget". Broadly, the schools budget will cover all expenditure for which funding is generally delegated to schools at present, along with most other expenditure on actual provision for pupils, including schools meals and out-of-school education. The LEA budget will cover functions which cannot sensibly be carried out except at the level of the LEA. These are likely to include most functions which are currently funded centrally by LEAs under the heads of strategic management, school improvement and access, which include home-to-school transport. The LEA budget will also cover LEA functions which do not relate to primary and secondary education. By aligning the scope of the two budgets with that of the two needs assessments, we shall clear away the "funding fog" that results from the mismatch between the local schools budget and the education SSA. Most of the schools budget will have to be delegated to schools, although LEAs will need to retain funding for certain purposes, as I have outlined.
	Clause 40 gives the Secretary of State for Education and Skills a power—to be used in exceptional circumstances—to set a minimum level for an authority's schools budget, as defined by Clause 39, where she considers the budget is seriously inadequate. The level may apply to the next financial year or to the financial year after that. We are introducing the measure to help to ensure that funding increases for schools made available by central government are passed on to schools by local authorities. We expect that the proposals we have made to require local authorities to provide a transparent account of school funding will put pressure on authorities to pass on funding increases. But where that does not achieve sufficient progress, we need a reserve power. As I said, in practice, we do not expect to use it except on exceptionally rare occasions.
	In setting the minimum level, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the relevant circumstances. We have set out in the explanatory notes some of those circumstances: how the authority's proposed budget compares with its school funding assessment; the performance of an LEA's schools; pressures—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said—from other services, recognising the joined-up nature of those services; and the degree to which the authority has failed to pass on the increase in funding to its schools. That is not an exhaustive list and there may be other criteria that we would wish to consider. We do not want to try to list all the criteria in the Bill only to discover later that we have missed something important which we would not then be allowed to consider. Such an omission could of course weaken the position of an LEA as much as strengthen it if the Secretary of State were not able to take on board very particular criteria which would mitigate the exercise of that power.
	The clause sets out the timetable for use of this power. We shall be asking local authorities to let us know their proposed budgets by the end of January—no earlier than we did this year, and a little later than in previous years, when we have approached authorities early in January to ask them to indicate whether they intend to pass on increases in education SSA. The timetable also allows authorities to make representations if they object to the level of budget set for their schools. They will, for example, be able to explain the impact that the proposed minimum budget would have on other services run by the council. Where there is an objection, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order setting the level of budget, to be subject to affirmative resolution, so Parliament would be able to debate it.
	This clause is important for our plans on school and LEA funding, it allows for a dialogue between central government and local government on the minimum level of the schools budget, and it recognises the real importance of education to our children. It should therefore stand part of the Bill.

Lord Smith of Leigh: I should first declare my interest as leader of a local authority. Will my noble friend clarify the position on the timing of budgeting, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned and is dealt with in subsection (5) of Clause 39? As the noble Baroness said, there are both local authority budgets and school budgets and we should not get the two out of synch. Another important factor is the announcement of central government support for local authorities. Although that usually occurs by the end of the calendar year, it does not always happen by then. The budgeting process itself occurs in the early part of the year. We have to ensure that we do not tie ourselves to a specific date which we cannot practically meet.

Baroness Blatch: I support that point. I know from my experience in local authorities the frustration of awaiting information from national government before being able to make local arrangements. I think that the purpose of Amendment No. 160 itself is to seek more time. There is an argument against establishing any time limits as they make it very difficult for local authorities.
	I intervene, however, to ask the Minister to clarify a point she made at the start of her reply. In speaking to government Amendment No. 161, to remove "the Secretary of State" from subsection (4)(c), she seemed to say not only that any intention to top-slice from the education budget would be removed, but that further constraints would be imposed on other attempts to top-slice that budget. Does that apply generally to top-slicing by the Secretary of State in relation to central initiatives, or only to specific matters not mentioned in the Minister's notes?
	In referring to the determinations that could be made by the schools forums, the Minister listed various services such as museums, libraries and catering. As that is to be a moveable feast, will we be given the list of services to be covered as currently envisaged by the Government? The provision gives a fairly open-ended power to the schools forums to determine the expenditure limits which will pass to schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In reply to my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, the information he mentioned has been available to local authorities from late November. He raises his eyebrows. However, I should expect late November to be the position. For what it is worth, that is now on the record.
	I shall repeat the specific statement which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, queried in relation to removing the side effect. As I said, our amendment means that, as now, any rules on top-slicing which the Secretary of State herself wishes to make will need to be set out expressly in the regulations and laid before Parliament as at present. I hope that that clarifies the position. If that is not clear, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: Does the measure relate only to the aspect of the Bill we are discussing or to any top-slicing which the Secretary of State may undertake?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I understand that the measure relates to this part of the Bill and not to any top-slicing. If that is incorrect, I shall, of course, clarify the position at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her replies. However, I am still extremely unhappy about the whole situation. As regards Amendment No. 160, schools forums powers will be extremely limited in relation to expenditure. However, regulations are to be introduced. Those powers could easily be extended. There is no particular reason why they should not be. The Minister said that the Government have no intention at the moment to introduce any significant extension in that regard. However, I cannot be confident about the situation at some later stage. We know that there is no love lost between some parts of the Government and local education authorities or local authorities generally. It is conceivable that, just as primary care trusts are seen as being, so to speak, the focus for health at the local level, so at some point will schools forums, which also have unelected members composed of professionals and governor representatives, and local education authorities will be completely bypassed. I am not happy about that. However, I shall not test the opinion of the Committee and I shall withdraw the amendment.
	As regards Clauses 39 and 40 standing part of the Bill, the whole issue of passporting or ring-fencing is unsatisfactory as it detracts from what I think are the fundamental democratic powers of the elected local body. There are some responsibilities, of which education has traditionally been one, that are run at a local level. Increasingly, those powers have been taken away and there is prescription after prescription coming from central government. As I say, if we want to rejuvenate local government, it is important that it is given real powers. I note the support we have received from the Official Opposition Benches. We need to get together to talk about these matters. Undoubtedly we shall return to them on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 25, line 30, leave out "the Secretary of State or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
	Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Power of Secretary of State to set minimum schools budget]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 165:
	Page 27, line 3, at end insert "and in Wales unless a draft of the order has been laid and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales"

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a similar procedure applies in Wales as applies in England. The amendment proposes an addition to subsection (5) of new Section 45C. The addition seeks to ensure that just as in England a draft order prescribing a minimal schools budget after a local authority has objected to the Secretary of State's original determination must be approved by a resolution in the other place, a similar procedure is followed in Wales. It is surely right that the National Assembly should approve executive action in such circumstances where the will of an elected local authority is overridden by the Minister.
	There is, I am bound to say, a glaring contrast in the Bill as it stands between the democratic approach in England and the bludgeoning approach towards local authorities in Wales. It may be argued that this is an internal matter for the Assembly and that it should be left to it to decide whether to institute an approval procedure. But that cannot be right. If by this Bill Parliament provides for a procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State, Parliament is similarly entitled to provide a procedure for the Assembly government to follow. This is, after all, primary legislation for which this Parliament alone is responsible. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the amendment requires an order setting a minimum schools budget for a local authority in Wales to be laid before, and approved by, the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment is not necessary. The power for the National Assembly for Wales to make such an order in relation to a local education authority in Wales is already conferred on it by virtue of Clause 204 of the Bill. Any such order will be made in accordance with the procedures for making statutory instruments in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the National Assembly's own standing orders.
	Under those procedures, draft orders are normally laid before the National Assembly and may be considered by the relevant subject committee which can report on them. They will be scrutinised by the Assembly's Legislation Committee. Finally, they must be considered and approved by the Assembly itself before being made. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Jones: My noble friend the Minister has spoken with authority from the Dispatch Box. How frequently does she have contact with those who lead on education in the National Assembly for Wales? Is it from them that she gains the confidence with which she has spoken from the Dispatch Box?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I spoke with confidence when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, as I referred to what is in the Bill which will, therefore, be enacted.
	The department is in regular contact with our friends in Wales. That is relevant and appropriate. However, of course we recognise that there is a devolved process. Therefore, we ensured that in working together on the Bill we drew it up as the National Assembly would wish.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her lucid explanation. However, I make no apology for my amendment. I tabled it in order to draw attention not only in this Chamber and in this Parliament but also in the National Assembly itself to the need to scrutinise any orders that may be made in the context we are discussing. It is surely right that if Parliament has to approve such an order, so should the National Assembly for Wales.
	There is a further point. Although, as the noble Baroness said, the National Assembly has the power to scrutinise all orders made by it, nevertheless I am told that it is not in fact its practice to do so and that there is a tendency not to consider the multiplicity of orders that emanate from the Assembly. However, having drawn its attention to this particular order-making power, I am sure that no order will be made under this new section that is not scrutinised by the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Schools forums]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 166:
	Page 27, line 17, after "shall" insert "if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in their area"

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill. I am not absolutely certain about which other amendments may or may not be discussed in relation to the amendment.
	My understanding is that the Government's thinking on Clause 41 is that establishing schools forums will be in the interests of schools and ensure that they receive as fair a share of—and as much—LEA funding as possible. One can only sympathise with the aims that lie behind the setting up of schools forums: we all want as much money as possible to go to where it belongs; that is, to schools, which can use it to benefit the education of children in their care.
	Proposed new Section 47A in Clause 41 states:
	"Every local education authority shall in accordance with regulations"—
	there is no flexibility in that regard—
	"establish for their area before such date as may be prescribed a body, to be known as a schools forum, representing the governing bodies and head teachers of schools maintained by the authority and, if the authority so determine, also representing such bodies as the authority may from time to time in accordance with regulations determine".
	I believe that the Government wish to do well by schools. I therefore think that it should be for schools to determine whether they want to establish such a body.
	The amendment would add to that subsection the phrase,
	"if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in their area".
	If that is requested, a schools forum should be set up. A number of local authorities—I hazard a guess that quite a large number are involved—already have in operation a system that allows for consultation, for parents to play a part, and for the wider community to be involved. In particular, schools, governing bodies and teachers are involved in pre-budget-making discussions with the local authority. To add flexibility, it must be for schools to determine whether they want a forum.
	I oppose the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill as a result of a personal view. I do not believe that the clause belongs in the Bill. My view is that the perfectly satisfactory arrangements that LEAs already have in their areas with regard to pre-budget consultative arrangements should be allowed to continue. The proposal would cause duplication unless the Government's intention is that setting up schools forums would be a substitute for what is going on; in other words, the other arrangements would be dropped. It also allows schools much more autonomy in their area. If the Government believe that arrangements should be made in each local authority area for consultative arrangements, leaving schools to do that in their own way is the way to go.
	In relation to earlier amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I argued strongly that schools forums should not be given the power to determine any aspect of budgeting. We shall return to that. They are unaccountable and are not elected in any way; they will be appointed. It would be wrong to give them the power to second-guess local authorities and budgeting arrangements. I do not believe that that is necessary on the grounds that I have described or in view of the consultative arrangements.
	If the Minister's only objection is that there has to be some form of pre-budget consultation in every LEA area, I shall bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill that will achieve that, if I am successful in removing Clause 41 from the Bill. If I am not successful in removing Clause 41 from the Bill, I hope that the Minister will at least show some flexibility and agree to Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 and to oppose the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill.
	The purpose of those amendments is to limit the power of schools forums to that of giving advice to the relevant local authority. Although the Government have set out the functions of schools forums in draft regulations, if they remain committed to the new unaccountable structures, further clarification of their role in the Bill would be helpful. That is because of the danger that the role of the forums could widen in future, through further regulations, to involve decision-making, despite the reassurance that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Sharp in relation to an earlier amendment.
	A number of problems would ensue from such an extension of the forums' powers. For example, would their determining whether some school support service budgets should be delegated to schools give them de facto employer capacity without the accountability to which LEAs taking such action are subjected? What if the amount that is given back to the authority to fulfil statutory duties in relation to special educational needs or for excluded children was not sufficient?
	The whole issue of schools forums is yet another example of the fact that the Government spend time legislating when doing so is quite unnecessary; there are much more important issues to discuss. Local authorities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, are already obliged to consult all schools under the fair-funding arrangements. Most schools are happy with that. A recent report by the Audit Commission showed that more than 80 per cent of the 10,000 schools that were questioned were happy with the level of support from the LEA on the planning of schools budgets and believed that consultation had improved during the past few years. Schools are consulted not only on budgets but also on service level agreements, asset management plans, sixth-form funding, recruitment and retention, SEN reviews, delegation of school meals provision, Ofsted inspections and directorate restructuring; I could go on.
	I hope that the Minister is not going to tell us that there has been an outcry demanding this extra bit of bureaucracy for schools. Does she have a file full of letters from head teachers demanding to have their time taken up with more meetings, the cost of which will be deducted from their budget? I am sure that she does not. Head teachers to whom I have spoken believe that they are well consulted by their LEA; they certainly do not have time for any more consultation and do not see the need for it.
	Authorities also consult a range of other stakeholders, including teachers' unions, diocesan boards, community groups, residents, Members of another place, local health authorities, the local Racial Equality Council, pupils, elected members and others. There is plenty of evidence from Ofsted inspections that consultation is being done effectively, regularly and widely. The saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", is a good one and should apply in this context.
	There is a danger that if the forums are established and do not contain a representative from every school or stakeholder in the authority, the level of satisfaction that I have described will melt away and schools will become dissatisfied with the views that are expressed by their representatives. Only a small number of schools could be involved and they may not be truly representative.
	While it is both desirable and possible for LEAs to further refine and improve consultation arrangements so that they take account of local needs and conditions and involve all stakeholders, there is no need to legislate for that. There is no proven need for that, and it would introduce unnecessary complexity into the LEA's budget-setting process.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 171, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and which is grouped with this amendment.
	We are concerned about this aspect of the Bill. The creation of schools forums is a debatable matter in itself. It is clear to us, particularly since the Regulatory Reform (Voluntary Aided Schools Liabilities and Funding) (England) Order came into effect in April this year, that particular issues involving voluntary-aided schools have to be addressed. If the forums will give advice to local authorities on funding and school budgets, it is essential that they are at least represented on schools forums. It would be an injustice for a body to be discussing the budgeting and funding arrangements for particular schools if there was no representative of the schools on the forum. That may be an oversight in the way that the Bill has been drafted. However, it seems to me that, of all the stakeholders, this is a particularly important one, although I share many of the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning the representation of all schools in this area.
	I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be sympathetic to the concerns of the voluntary-aided schools. When it comes to forming a budget and the funding of a school, they have particular issues to address which are not applicable to community schools.

Lord Jones: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister from whence comes the concept of the schools forum which she promulgates today. Have there been any pilots, or is there anything that might remotely equal a pilot in the country at present? Is there, for example, any parallel in an overseas country to what is now proposed? Can she spell out the reasons or the details as to why she makes these proposals? Is it because consultations are now considered to be defective? My noble friend might respond to those questions should she get to the Dispatch Box in the near future.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: When the Minister comes to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, no doubt she will deal with the general question of schools forums. I believe that we all wait with interest to hear what she has to say. However, my purpose in rising is simply to support the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who suggested that voluntary-aided schools should certainly be involved in the membership of schools forums where they are established.
	It is paradoxical that earlier in our proceedings the complaint was made that Church or faith schools did not always play their part in the wider community. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, used the phrase "ghetto schools". Some Members of the Committee disagreed with that and said that it was an unfair caricature of those schools. However, unless we incorporate this amendment, or something like it, into the text of the Bill, there is a danger that voluntary-aided schools will be set aside in precisely the way that was suggested when concerns were expressed earlier in our proceedings. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that there may have been an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. I hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, comes to reply, she will be able to give a helpful response.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. My remarks will be extremely brief. This is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, but I shall draw on the speeches that have just been made by the noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Alton. My speech will be in the nature of the occasional comments made by the chorus in Greek tragedies.
	The Minister will be aware that Clause 41, which we are now discussing, and Clauses 42 and 43 were not debated in another place due to the programming Motion. There is a degree of interlocking relationship between the clauses with which we are dealing in this part of the Bill. The logic that would have been revealed in another place if the clauses had been discussed is, of course, lacking to us. Consideration is genuinely assisted if Ministers have the chance to explain the unfolding logic, which Ministers in another place were denied the opportunity to do. However, this is not simply an animadversion on programming Motions, although I dare say that any self-respecting Greek chorus could have risen to a climax of ululation on the subject. But no chorus was confined to a single theme.
	My concluding remarks, which flow from everything else that I have said, contain profound sympathy for the Minister for the extra strain that is put upon her in this place for having, as the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Jones, said, to explain issues which, frankly, we would have found easier to discuss if they had already been debated somewhere else.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That was a very good introduction. It would have been easier for me, too, if these matters had been discussed elsewhere. I shall endeavour to ensure that I cover all the relevant points. I know that Members of the Committee will ensure that I do so before the end of this discussion.
	I begin by speaking to Amendment No. 170—the government amendment. This amendment has been brought forward as a result of further consideration of the way in which the Bill is drafted. It is not a new policy; it has always been our intention that a schools forum should be consulted by its local education authority on the funding formula and various other matters, including a limited range of items which I have already discussed.
	However, the clause is written in terms of the forum's, rather than the authority's, functions. Therefore, it is questionable whether, as it currently stands, it authorises regulations which compel the authority to undertake such consultation. The amendment makes it explicit that the relevant regulations can compel the LEA to consult the forum. That is my formal statement on the matter. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree to the amendment on the basis that, if we are to have forums, they need to be able to do their job well.
	I turn to Amendment No. 166 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerning consideration about the majority of governing bodies. The noble Baroness referred to Cambridgeshire—an authority that both she and I are privileged to know something about, although obviously I know it from a different end of the telescope from the noble Baroness. As the noble Baroness said, that authority, and many others, have a good dialogue with schools about funding issues. They have established local consultative groups and those work well.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked me on what basis we brought forward this provision. We did so by looking at examples of where local education authorities and schools have worked well together. We asked what lesson could be learnt that would be applicable across all local education authorities.
	Therefore, we are trying to bring forward schools forums for the benefit of schools everywhere. We believe that they have vital functions to fulfil. Those are: improved consultation on funding formulae; decisions on the delegation of funding for certain types of expenditure; advice on a range of financial issues, including the balance of spending on various services; and helping the LEA to fill a client role in letting contracts. Above all, they will be a conduit for the views of schools on the management of the schools budget, which is introduced under Clause 39.
	The list of functions shows why the forums are part of our strategy for the new LEA and school funding system which we are working towards. From the representations that we have had from the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Governors' Council, I believe that this is something that schools want. The Secondary Heads Association gave me permission to quote this:
	"While it is true that many local education authorities do have reasonably effective ways of consulting their schools, the current process is not consistent or evenly satisfactory".
	It is precisely that that we seek to address. We want this important initiative to go ahead as soon as possible so that schools can influence decisions which will be taken by authorities in the first stage of the new funding system in 2003–04. We believe that introducing an extra stage, by polling schools as to whether or not to have a forum, would be unnecessary and bureaucratic.
	We want to see this provision in every area. We believe that schools forums have an important role to play, and it is a role that we want to see every local education authority take on. The concept is based on the good practice of schools elsewhere and on the good practice of local education authorities. We want to see it universally adopted, and that is why we are putting it forward in this way.
	For that reason, I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although I agree with many things that she said. Specifically she said that schools forums would be voted in by a majority of governing bodies. But we would not want significant minorities to be unable to have a schools forum, not least because we consider them to be important.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 167 to 169. The forums are essentially advisory and consultative bodies, and the functions that we intend to give them mostly reflect that role. But we believe that there is some scope for a limited decision-making role with regard to the delegation of certain items of expenditure. Those items are the museum service, meals for primary and special school pupils, library services and so on. As I said, we shall consult to ensure that that list is the right one. In doing so, we have been holding discussions at length with the Local Government Association.
	Whether or not delegation of those items is better than LEA central funding will depend on local circumstances. We believe that the schools forum can usefully reach the collective view of local schools on this matter. Therefore, we want to entrust such decisions to the forums and, through them, the schools that they represent.
	As I said, we do not intend to extend the list in the future. For most items where expenditure is centrally retainable, a decision to delegate will still rest with the local education authority. That must be, and is, especially true in relation to special educational needs because the LEA has responsibility for ensuring that special educational needs requirements are fulfilled. However, the limited scope that we wish to give to forums for decision-making means that it is not right to designate them as purely advisory bodies.
	I turn to Amendment No. 171 which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. It requires that schools forums should automatically have head teacher and governing body representation for voluntary-aided schools. I recognise that that reflects concern within the Churches that such schools may not have their particular interests adequately represented on the forums. In response to that concern we propose to insert in the regulations on forum membership a provision that permits LEAs to organise the election of school members so that there is separate representation by school type, if it appears that that is justified by local circumstances and wishes. Those on the schools forums will be elected teachers and governors from the schools within the area.
	However, we do not believe that there is justification for an automatic representation for voluntary-aided schools. First, such a right would be disproportionate. In many authorities fewer than 20 per cent of schools are voluntary aided. In fairness, such a right would have to be matched by rights for other school types. Secondly, schools forums are to be concerned only with school funding matters. We believe that the category—community, voluntary or foundation—that a school falls into does not affect its funding from the education authority to any significant degree, especially now that changes have been made to governing body liability for premises of voluntary-aided schools.
	That means that the situation is not analogous to school organisation committees which always have diocesan representatives. We understand that the Churches will want to have an involvement. Therefore, I say to the right reverend Prelate that in guidance on the forums, about which we shall be consulting shortly, we intend to encourage LEAs to appoint diocesan representatives as non-schools members. Furthermore, voluntary school heads and governing bodies will no doubt be keen to stand for election as schools members. We think that that is the better way, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	On Clause 41 stand part, we want to build on what has been successful. We believe that the consultative process set up in some local education authorities is a model that we can enhance and develop into the schools forums. We believe that the way in which we have increased the proportion of schools' funding delegated to school bodies means that the logical next step is the process that we have set up in Clause 39, which is creating separate schools and LEA budgets.
	So local education authorities already have a good relationship with schools on those issues, but others do not. We want schools in those areas to share in best practice. That is what we are seeking. We shall issue a consultative paper on the way in which forums should be constituted and the functions that they will have. Responses will inform the regulations and guidance. We would like the forums to become functional by 31st October, so that they can have a meaningful input into the deliberations on school budgets for 2003–04. A first draft has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We expect to add to that draft a provision requiring LEAs to have regard to the need for school members to be broadly representative of the types of school to be found in an area.
	I have found this debate extremely useful. We want the forums to become a valuable tool. We believe that we have received representations from governors and head teachers that that would be welcome. We believe that it will build on the success that noble Lords have described as taking place in education authority areas. Having listened to the debate, I shall want to reflect further. I am not sure that I shall be able to find a way that will satisfy all noble Lords, but I am happy to offer to meet with noble Lords to discuss the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Jones: Regarding the consultation with the LEAs and the proposed forums, shall we assume that a substantial body of the local education authorities is deficient in consultation? If that is the case, does my noble friend have any body of research or any information that she may share with the Committee as to why she proposes the forums in the Bill?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I had hoped that I had given the noble Lord some encouragement when I described how we have been considering good practice that exists within certain local education authorities. We are seeking to set up something that is not just a talking shop but more; something that will enable that dialogue to turn into a solid relationship between schools forums and local education authorities with a respect for the role of each. On the basis of the good experience that exists, I am happy to write to the noble Lord laying out some of the examples, of which the Committee will be fully aware, that we have considered. It is for those reasons that head teachers, governors and their representative bodies have said that they want to explore the situation with us. Having said that I am happy to discuss this further with noble Lords, I hope that it will be taken forward.

Lord Jones: That is sufficient reassurance for me to say that should there be a vote I shall be with my noble friend.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Perhaps the Minister will clarify her response to the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. She suggested that in some areas where minority interests were relatively small it would not be appropriate for them to be represented on schools forums. However, in some boroughs, such as the borough of Wigan, close to 50 per cent of schools are run by the Churches. In those circumstances, who is in a majority and who is in a minority?
	In subsection (10), to which I believe she referred in new Section 47A on schools forums, it says that,
	"'non-school member', in relation to a schools forum, means a member other than a schools member".
	Does that mean that a representative who may be placed on the schools forums from a voluntary-aided school can, in no circumstances, be someone involved in the school? That was what she implied when saying that they would be representatives of the diocese and so on. Surely that will not put them on the same basis as other representatives who will come from the maintained sector. I am grateful that she has indicated that she is willing to have further consultation on these matters. Will she bear in mind those points as the consultations proceed?

Lord Lucas: As the Minister responded to the amendments I became more and more concerned that the Government are missing the point of what is being carried out so successfully in many local authorities. Local authorities are gathering consent and conducting matters in a way that, from time to time, suits a particular local authority, a particular group of schools and a particular set of problems. It is a structure that is flexible and that can respond to difficulties that may arise; for example, one particular group of schools may feel that it is not properly represented on the forum, but the forum is not charged with any statutory duty. Its object is to produce consent. Its usefulness as far as concerns the local authority is to produce something that is owned by the schools so that when the unpleasant task of cutting £1 million from the budgets to fund extra special educational needs provision arises, the exercise can be conducted with consent and with understanding all round.
	The structure in the Bill appears to introduce something that is too rigid. If voluntary-aided schools were unhappy with what was going on and they were not represented, that would leave them feeling that they had not consented to a decision that the schools forum had made; they would not feel part of it. It would seem to me that that would lose the point of the good practice that has been established.
	By acclamation, this Chamber is moving towards greater power for elected Members, but in local education authorities we are moving the other way and introducing mini quangos that will have powers that are not responsive to the electorate. I am not sure that that is the way that we should go. I believe that we should work through the democracy and the good practice of local education authorities. By all means let us have the power as a fall-back position for schools, but allow local authorities to produce their own solutions if the fall-back power would compel them to do it in a way that they would not like. I find that a valuable way of encouraging good practice.
	I have one technical question. The Minister referred to the admission forums having powers. As far as I can see, that comes under new Section 47A(3)(a) which refers to new Section 45A(3). I cannot see that Clause 45A(3) refers in any explicit way to giving powers to schools forums. Can the Minister explain the technicalities of how something that appears to be a regulation governing what is delegated or what is not, can suddenly give powers to another body to take part in those decisions when that body is not mentioned at all in anything to do with new Section 45A(3)?
	That may just be a misunderstanding on my part. But it gives me unease that one can look at the regulations in new Section 45A(3) and assume that they are a matter between the Department for Education and Skills and local education authorities, and suddenly find that they are giving powers to another body. How many other bodies will they be giving power to? I am not clear on that point.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise for a second time, but feel better about doing so because I expressed sympathy to the Minister for the task imposed upon her by the other place. As I followed her logic—and it was about her logic that I was concerned when I first spoke—it is, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said much more articulately than I could, that things are working well on a voluntary basis and in a consultative manner in certain parts of the country and therefore we should standardise them. However, it seems possible, as my noble friend Lord Lucas implied, that it is the very circumstances in which they have hitherto been working which have made them successful. I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong.
	I shall also be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Jones, will allow me to be copied with whatever letter the Minister sends to him. I am happy to keep an open mind in regard to what the Minister says. But I have always been powerfully influenced by the observation of C S Lewis that if you hear about somebody going around doing good to others, you can always tell the others by their hunted look!

Baroness Walmsley: Did I understand the Minister to say that the schools forums would completely replace the current consultation processes? If so, we are in danger of dumbing down rather than improving the quality overall in the interests of the consistency to which the Minister referred.
	I am concerned that many schools would not be involved with the schools forums. The primary schools in particular may lose out because the system will undoubtedly be dominated by the secondary schools. Nor am I convinced that there is a demand for this kind of structure. Clearly it comes to some extent from the Secondary Heads Association. But I wonder how many head teachers are behind the statement and how many school governors are demanding a structure of this kind. I am afraid that the Government will be jumping out of what they consider to be a frying pan into what the rest of us consider to be a fire.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I appear to be the only Member of your Lordships' Chamber who is quite excited by the idea of schools forums, which may say something although I do not know what.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, confused me because he mentioned admissions forums, which are different. The technical answer to his question is that new Section 45A(4)(c) relates to schools forums powers under 45A(3). I can go no further than that at this point, but shall be happy to take that up with him later if it would help.
	I am sorry if I gave the illusion that schools forums are meant to replace the consultative mechanisms. They are not. Members of the Committee will know that some local education authorities have extremely sophisticated systems. The Government do not want to interfere with those. This provision says that there needs to be an opportunity for some kind of representation of schools, elected by schools, to come together and discuss with local education authorities what is happening in their area. We believe this to be a good method of doing that.
	As Members of the Committee will be aware—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because she has stood at this Dispatch Box—different local education authorities have different experiences, as do schools. So sometimes the role of government is to put together a package which is made to look the same across the piece in order to ensure that those schools, those education authorities and ultimately those children, receive the best possible service. That is what we are trying to create in these provisions.
	As I said, I am happy to discuss the detail. I recognise the strength of feeling. It is not a question of taking away what has flowered, blossomed and grown in different areas to be something hugely successful. We are providing something to enable a dialogue to develop under a new funding regime and with the new opportunities that arise on a representative basis. It is no more and no less than that. There are some matters the forums could discuss with the LEAs. But of course the main bulk of funding provisions rests where it should; that is, either with the school or with the local education authority.
	I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I was saying that we would be allowing different categories to cover precisely the point that in some areas many schools are voluntary aided and in other areas very few are, and to recognise that representatives from the diocese could be part of the forums via the group we described as a non-schools member. I hope that that reassures Members of the Committee. I look forward to continuing the debate but hope that the clause will be allowed to stand part.

Lord Lucas: Perhaps I can just come back to the technical answer to my query on new Section 45A(3). I shall be happy for the noble Baroness to write to me. But what concerns me is that new Section 45A(3) refers to expenditure being determined by the authority,
	"in respect of that year as they may determine should be so deducted in accordance with regulations".
	That giving of power apparently allows powers to be conferred on a schools forum without the schools forum in any way being mentioned in the provision. It implies that the same regulation could be used, for instance, to confer powers on Railtrack; in other words, there is a complete unknown as to on whom those powers are being conferred because it is not mentioned on the face of the Bill. That is what concerns me about the provision. It is a technical matter but I should like it to be covered at some stage.

Baroness Blatch: I begin by saying how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. But what I find really depressing is reading the accounts of the debates in another place and on coming to the end of every single sitting, finding a clutch of clauses which have received no discussion whatever. I find that to be a disgrace. I must say in passing that whatever comes out of the debate on the future of this place, if something does not put that right—I refer to the elected Chamber, the elected Members of this country, under all governments, not being allowed to discuss the merits or demerits of all the Bills that pass through their House—we shall be very remiss with regard to our obligation to do something about the democratic deficit in this country; and the democratic deficit is not in this place; it is in another place.
	Having said that, the noble Baroness said a moment ago that the arrangements in this clause are not in any way meant to substitute for what local authorities are already doing. But that is not a real world comment. No local authority will keep the arrangements it already has in place, which are working well, are highly satisfactory and which are successful in its own area, if at the same time it has this obligation superimposed on it to duplicate that effort and, worse still, to pass over from the local authority to a wholly unelected body, to be called the "schools forums", powers to determine financial aspects of budget making. That is simply not acceptable.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may add that the schools are also going to find themselves top-sliced in order to pay for the schools forums, and of course will have to find time for the extra level of bureaucracy—10 meetings and so forth—which is probably the last thing they want.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pre-empted my next point, which was to ask who is going to meet the cost of the forums. We all know the answer. It will have to come from the overall education budget. The same applies to the time that will be involved, the logistics of meetings and the number of meetings that will have to be held; and if we are empowering these bodies to determine aspects of budget making, the meetings will have to be extremely formal.
	I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was satisfied with the answer given to their comments. But perhaps I may make another point. I am grateful that the Minister intends to reflect on the points made about voluntary-aided schools in various LEAs. Sadly, some areas have voluntary-aided and faith schools which are not looked upon kindly by the local education authority. It is important that those schools are protected in some way. Schools in those authorities—this is a point made by the right reverend Prelate—have different obligations under funding arrangements. If we pass down powers to determine to local schools forums, it is important that they should have some form of representation. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind.
	If the Government are worried about the amount of money that goes into schools and if they believe that there is a big issue of LEAs not passing down the money, there is a remedy: they could fund schools directly. I return to the point which I have made on previous amendments. The guilty party is the Government. There is the money held back by central government and the additional burdens put on local government which erode the money that would normally go into schools. A schools forum would not put that matter right. The Government have the powers to put it right.
	I conclude by saying that there are two objections to the clause. First, local authorities, which have perfectly good arrangements in place, will have to substitute those with the arrangements set out in the clauses in the Bill. I think that that is absolute bunkum. If the noble Baroness is saying that the rationale for this clause is that the Government are trying to emulate what local authorities do well and pass that good practice around, I say that there needs to be a simple clause in the Bill requiring each LEA area to have good, meaningful and effective pre-budgetary consultation processes in place, and which allows the inspectorate to judge whether that provision is working properly.
	The other objection to the clause is the unacceptable passing on of decision-making powers to a wholly unelected body. Perhaps I may give advance notice that I shall not be opposing that the clause stand part because we shall need to return to the matter. There is concern about it on all Benches of the House, including the Government's. If this clause remains on the face of the Bill, governing bodies should at least have the flexibility to decide whether or not they have a schools forum. That would get over the whole issue of the noble Baroness's case. Therefore, where LEAs' arrangements are working well their governing bodies could vote not to change them. In those where they are not, governing bodies could say that they need a schools forum.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 166) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 120.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 167 to 169 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 170:
	Page 27, line 29, at end insert—
	"(3A) Regulations made under section 45A(3) or by virtue of subsection (3)(b) may include provision requiring relevant authorities to consult schools forums in relation to prescribed matters or before taking prescribed decisions."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: moved Amendment No. 171:
	Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations shall secure that the membership of a schools forum includes representatives of the governing bodies and head teachers of any voluntary aided schools maintained by the authority."

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's response, because I was one of the Members of the Committee who she might have converted to her enthusiasm. I am deeply troubled, because in the name of the introduction of good practice, we risk removing existing good practice and we underestimate a tension that may arise if voluntary-aided schools are not properly represented in the forums, if we are to have them.
	However, I take some comfort—because I was given half a loaf rather than a whole one—from the promise of guidance and of the appointment of a non-schools member, which I take to be someone from a diocese or other parent body of a group of faith schools. I shall study carefully what the Minister had to say—in particular, her offer to meet those of us who are deeply concerned about the matter for further discussion to find a way forward. With those brief words, I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I rise to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I, too, am happy to be moved between now and Report by any arguments that the Minister may advance to convince me to join her in the Lobby next time. I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because I did not feel that the arguments so far advanced went far enough. I strongly believe that we should treat voluntary-aided schools in precisely the same way as we treat the maintained sector. The arguments made today as to why we should not do so were unconvincing.
	I look forward to hearing why it is impossible to achieve that objective by the more simple route of putting all schools on the same footing, which would be much better and easier, and which the right reverend Prelate seeks to achieve by the amendment. Between now and Report, I look forward to the discussions that the Minister has offered us today.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I, too, look forward to those discussions. We are searching for what is the right footing—we agree on that. I am sorry to have given the right reverend Prelate only half a loaf. I failed him on Ascension Day; I have failed him yet again; but I live in hope. I look forward to those discussions and continuing our debate.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Accounts of maintained schools]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 172:
	Page 28, line 22, at end insert ", and
	( ) to provide information to the local education authority and the parents of pupils on roll at the school, reasons for holding reserves, if at the end of the financial year the statement of account indicates that such reserves are in excess of 1 per cent of the school's budget"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall not detain the Committee long on this amendment. The clause is about how school accounts should be drawn up. The amendment provides that where schools are holding substantial reserves, not only should account be given of the reserves but information should be provided to both the local education authority and the parents on why they are holding such large reserves.
	One or two schools hold reserves of well over £1 million; at least one school has reserves of more than £2 million. There appears to be no particular reason for those schools to hold those reserves, and the amendment would require them to account for why they are doing so. If there is a particular reason, they should provide it to both the local education authority and the parents. It is clear that money being held in reserves is money that is not being spent for the purposes for which it was allocated: supporting the education of the pupils at the school.
	Some schools may well be holding reserves to support a particular long-term project. However, whatever their rationale, it is evident that both LEAs and parents are entitled to an explanation of why such large reserves are being kept—why the money is being retained. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness referred to at least two schools that she knew to be holding considerable reserves, and said that some schools—although not those schools in particular—have no particular good reason for holding on to reserves. I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness seeks through the amendment in that any reserves held by a school should be a matter of public information. The governing body should certainly make that information available to parents. Parents should know what reserves are held.
	I also have no objection in principle to that information being available to the local education authority, but I was unnerved when the noble Baroness mentioned there being no particular good reason for holding reserves. Some schools may just be concerned to save a rainy day—for that terrible teaching crisis that may loom without notice; or for a dearth of something fairly expensive that needs to be replaced, such as technical equipment or books and other equipment. They may have no particular reason but have reason to believe that holding a reserve is a good thing.
	Other schools are saving for a non-revenue recurring expenditure that they can meet only by accumulating money year on year until they can purchase what they want. Or they may be using the money on an instalment basis to pay for something rather larger than could be met from normal annual funding.
	We should leave schools free to accumulate reserves, if they wish to do so. I have no objection to making that a matter of public information, available to parents and covered in the annual report. I have no objection, in principle, to making it a matter of information—no more—for the local education authority, but I hope that it will not lead local education authorities to take a view about whether it is right or wrong for a school to do it and seek powers to limit the amount held or interfere, in some way, with a school's priorities. I do not know whether it is the noble Baroness's intention that the amendment should extend to giving local authorities such powers.
	I am strongly in favour of schools being master in their own house in this area, but I have no objection to making it a matter of public information.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My wording was too loose. There may be good reasons why a school would wish to hold reserves, but it is important that there should be transparency about the matter. The LEA and the parents, through the governing body, should know how big the reserves are and why they are held.

Lord Lucas: On the second time around, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. She was agreeing with my noble friend Lady Blatch on what the amendment is about.
	For some schools, 1 per cent is nothing. A little primary school with 80 pupils will want reserves of 5 per cent. Such a school has no flexibility with regard to its teaching staff. What happens if a family moves out of the area? Such schools need a high percentage reserve. However, it should be public, it should be explained to parents, and it should be treated in an up-front manner by the governors.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Amity has broken out all around. The Government share the general views expressed in the debate on the amendment. We have some reservations about the amendment itself, however, and that is why I shall ask the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, to withdraw it.
	The noble Baroness spoke about substantial reserves. It would not be right to say that a school operating on just 1 per cent of surplus had substantial reserves. We would consider a figure closer to 5 per cent, the figure that we expect local authorities to use when they check out such matters. We do not quarrel with the thinking behind the debate or with what noble Lords have said. We are carrying out a pilot project relating to information for parents, and we will consider the situation positively and constructively.
	We recognise the virtue of the arguments presented so well in the debate, and we shall consider the matter further. However, we disagree about the detail and would, therefore, like the amendment to be withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. I am delighted that the Government intend to think further about the matter. I agree that 1 per cent is too low a level; it would be more sensible for it to be about 5 per cent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 42 agreed to.
	Clause 43 agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 173:
	Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
	After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request or vote in ballot) there is inserted—
	"106A RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
	Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.""

Baroness Blatch: This amendment will dispel any amity between these Benches and the Government Benches. It is an important amendment, and it gives the Government the opportunity to end the vendetta against grammar schools. A sword of Damocles has hung—and continues to hang—over grammar schools. There has been a war of attrition against some schools, taking the form either of threatening a petition or of actually gaining one. In the case of one school, there was indeed a ballot.
	The Government do not believe that there should be petitions and ballots to determine the fate of city technology colleges, academies or specialist schools, all of which, in one way or another, select their pupils. Why single out grammar schools? There is no logic in that. Although no grammar school has, to date, been closed as a result of the Government's policy, there has been disruption, there is anxiety, and precious time and energy has been spent on dealing with challenges and potential challenges. Once a group—however small—of people who object philosophically to the existence of grammar schools becomes active in an area, there is uncertainty and disquiet.
	Why are grammar schools singled out for such treatment? Is it because they select? So do city technology colleges, academies and specialist schools. Is it because they select academically able pupils? If so, why should bright children be discriminated against, when those who are talented in sport, science, technology, the arts, music and other subjects do not receive such treatment? Why do the Government support specialist schools for music, art, dance? The department supports some very élitist schools of ballet and music. I approve of all of that, but there seems to be some inconsistency. We allow an élite in some of the subjects that I mentioned, but, somehow, there is discrimination against academically able children.
	One argument that one hears is that there are only about 166 grammar schools. There is debate over whether it is 166 or 164, but I shall not argue about that. Some ask why, as there are only 166 schools, there should be so much fuss. That is what Mr Blunkett said, when he was Secretary of State. However, there are far fewer city technology colleges—about 15—and there are even fewer academies. So the argument that is based on the fact that there are only 166 grammar schools is no argument at all. It is pure politics—the politics of envy.
	There has always been an aversion to allowing bright children—particularly those from less advantaged homes—to get their feet on the ladder into schools that provide for them. The other day, I read, out of interest, the CVs of noble Lords—on the Government Benches as well as the other Benches. Many noble Lords have enjoyed a grammar school education. There is nothing more wicked than for someone to enjoy a facility and then close the door behind him and deny it to others.
	We are also told that the Government are concerned about increasing access to university for bright young people from poorer backgrounds. Grammar schools are especially successful at preparing such young people for entry into higher education. They have traditionally been successful at doing that, and they are still successful at it. I reject the idea that we should, in any way, disrupt the existence of such schools.
	We know that the policy is a sop. Although there is a dichotomy between what the Liberals do locally and what they do nationally, those on the Liberal Benches made it clear that, had they been the parents of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, they would have put in a clause that would have abolished grammar schools altogether. They made no secret of that, and I accept that, although there is a tension between that and what individual Liberals do locally. Even so, why is there such a vendetta against people who follow their abilities and aptitudes into appropriate education? It is inexplicable.
	My amendment is cost-free. It would allow grammar schools to continue to exist without the constant annual threat of disruption. It would also allow the continuance of one sector of education that has served this country well for hundreds of years. I beg to move.

Baroness David: I do not believe that at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill it is the moment to start a debate about selection and the success of comprehensive schools. However, I agree with the noble Baroness on one point: the present system is not working at all well and there is a possibility of making it work a little better.
	I should like to see the end of grammar schools. I do not believe that they have all the benefits the noble Baroness describes and I believe that the systems of petitions and so forth should be stopped. I suggest that the threshold for calling a ballot as distinct from starting a petition should be lowered so that parents can have a say on local grammar school admissions. At present they appear to be denied a choice. The amendment would stop for six years a further attempt to start a parent petition.
	Do the Government believe that they can change the present arrangements so that they are fairer and parents can have a better say? The present system does not work.

Baroness Blatch: Was the noble Baroness agreeing that there should be a six-year moratorium, which my amendment calls for?

Baroness David: Six years will stop parents having any say for a long time. I should like the system to be changed.

Lord Lucas: There appears to be scope for a mid-way between the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend. If it were made easier to hold a ballot and then afterwards there were a long moratorium, that would be sensible from all points of view. We have a system in place and I do not see the Government changing it, but having a continual guerrilla war is not good for the parents who are complaining or for the schools which are being "got at". We need to have the matter decided, as in Ripon, get it out of the way and get everyone existing together in a happier frame of mind. If progress could be made in that direction, I should be delighted.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I recall the Minister saying at Second Reading that she had not had the privilege of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. I have had the great privilege of knowing the noble Lord for 47 years and have debated with him on and off throughout that period. When I saw him in the Chamber earlier today, I immediately asked myself why he was here and I am sorry that he left before we reached this debate. He and I even got so far as to contest a place on the executive of the National Union of Students.
	Politicians enjoy bust-ups and therefore I understand why people want to have the kind of contest that is involved in this matter. Furthermore, I realise that there are strong feelings on both sides. However, my experience of the British people is that they are less enthusiastic about having permanent bust-ups and would rather that politicians did not have them so often. My proof of that is the astonishing boredom which develops during general elections. In their third week people are longing for them to end so that there will not be another for five years. Most importantly, in the human condition uncertainty is a profound source of demoralisation and it seems to me to be a very bad thing to produce such a degree of uncertainty on a constant basis.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, a sadness that my noble friend Lord Hattersley is not with us in the Chamber—he may suddenly reappear—because I know that he would want to engage in this debate.
	I intend to reflect far more on the essence of the amendment, but I do so because this Chamber has had the opportunity to debate these issues at great length and I do not wish to reopen that debate on this Bill and this particular clause.
	All of us in this Chamber are striving to provide the best education system we can for every child in the country. That unites us. What divides us is the means by which we seek to achieve that. I had the benefit of a grammar school education. I am the first and only woman in my family to have gone to university and I hope that my daughter will be the second. I watched so many of my friends fail their 11-plus and fail to enjoy the benefits. They were men and women I considered to be as bright as I was. We had a system which said, "If you go to grammar school you are this and if you go somewhere else you are that and the 'that' is not as good as the 'this'". That is why I, as an individual as well as a Minister, philosophically do not support selection by ability at 11.
	That does not mean that I do not value diversity. I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree with diversity of ability within our society: that people who can dance should go to the Royal Ballet School and that people who can play instruments or sing like angels should go to music schools. Many people can do things which I cannot do, whether that is fixing the plumbing—which I certainly cannot do—or creating a building, because we are all different. We are striving for an education system which values that difference and which values and enables us all to grow and develop. For me, that is the comprehensive system, but for other Members of the Committee it may be a different system. That is where I stand and from where I cannot move.
	The clause makes two changes. First, it makes a change to the moratorium period of five years from the date on which the ballot result is announced to six years from the date on which the petition is initiated. We have considered that matter carefully and believe that in practice it will take the better part of a year for campaigners to gather names for a petition, for a ballot company to check validity, and for a ballot to be held. Therefore, we believe that in that respect the clause would have no practical effect.
	Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the new clause would introduce a new moratorium in the event of an unsuccessful petition when a ballot had not been held. We have said that we want parents to be in the driving seat on this issue and it is right that when a ballot clearly demonstrates local support for the existing admission arrangements, as in Rippon, for example, the school concerned should enjoy a period of stability. That is why our procedures allow a five-year moratorium on further campaigns.
	However, where there has been no ballot and therefore no expression of local feeling, we do not believe it can be right to deny parents the opportunity to reconsider the issue. It is possible for the new clause to leave the system open to abuse. Someone would only have to register a petition with a ballot company and then without collecting a single signature during the year, that person would be able to prevent any attempt in the next five years to gauge support among local parents. We believe that introducing a provision which would open the door to such potential abuse cannot be right.
	Grammar school ballot arrangement were debated in great detail during the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act and I believe that all sides of your Lordships' House had great opportunity to put their arguments forward. We continue to believe that the arrangements currently in place strike a sensible balance between the stability that schools need and the parent's right to express a view. We believe that it represents the best way forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because the amendment has given us time to reflect on that further, but we are still firmly of that view. I hope that she will feel persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not believe that this is a good time to start an argument. We will probably be starting arguments at 11 o'clock tonight on some issues and I regard 7.20 p.m. as almost morning in terms of how we conduct business in this place.
	I am also disappointed in the Minister's comment that as the matter has been debated at length in this House, she has no intention of debating it again. We return to some issues again and again. The fact that a matter has been debated once does not mean that it is done and dusted and should never be debated again. The merits—or demerits, as I see them—of an issue should be revisited because no government have the wisdom of getting things right all the time.
	The Minister argued that although she has been to a grammar school, many people have not. I have certainly heard that argument before and have argued that one of the problems was that there was not enough of them. There could have been more. The Minister might like me to bore her at the next stage of the Bill—I may—with some of the evidence, by citing cases in Northern Ireland, for instance, where there are grammar, secondary modern and other types of school, as there are in Kent and other counties. In those areas, the secondary modern schools do better by their pupils, just as the grammar schools do better by theirs. That is because each school deals with a limited range of ability and is therefore able to focus on the particular needs of its pupils.
	I turn to the issue of making decisions at the age of 11 years. I agree that that is a debatable point; I have always thought so. There is a debate to be had about whether decisions should be made at the age of 11, 12 or 13. We know that in the independent sector decisions are made at 13, which those schools regard as a better stage for children to move from what are essentially junior into senior schools.
	But the fact that there is a constant, almost political and philosophical objection to bright young people being taught appropriately in a grammar school setting seems to me to be absurd. I really must ask the noble Baroness to tell me why it should be that in an area with a city technology college, which creams off many children, and where three, four and sometimes five applications are received for each place—and parents whose children are unlucky and do not receive a place in those schools probably feel as disappointed as those whose children did not pass the 11-plus—there is no system in place for local parents to take a view on whether such a school should continue to cream off the 20 per cent of successful applicants who are fortunate enough to get a place.
	I certainly do not argue that there should be a system in place to do that, but I wish to put a straight question to the noble Baroness: why should grammar schools be on the receiving end of this rather pernicious system of petitioning and balloting while, for example, city technology colleges are not?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We shall not allow any more city technology colleges to be created under the Bill. The noble Baroness has raised an important point which I shall take back to the department.
	However, I am concerned about the need to ensure that all our children receive the high-quality education they deserve, appropriate to their needs. On that we are agreed. Where we disagree is that there should be one system which declares that, at the age of 11, a decision is made that certain children are able to move forward, while children who may not have developed fully at that age are left disappointed. I think that "disappointment" is an underestimate of the feeling of some children who fail the 11-plus examination and their families. In a sense, it felt as though the system had written them off. I cannot support a system that is designed to do that.
	The noble Baroness raised an issue with regard to the age at which children develop. We can discuss that matter and I shall be happy to return to it on Report. But it is important that I make our position absolutely clear. We think that ballots provide the right and appropriate way for parents to express their views and, in so doing, ensure continued stability for the schools concerned. That is a reasonable position for the Government to take.

Baroness Blatch: That response was interesting and extremely revealing, on two counts. First, I turn to the matter of city technology colleges. Ministers have gone on the record lauding them. Ministers have gone on the record congratulating my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for initiating the city technology colleges. They have remained a part of the patchwork offering variety in educational provision. Indeed, the Minister's colleagues in another place have quite rightly built on the model of the city technology colleges in their plans for specialist schools. They are looking at ways of conferring greater economic freedom and autonomy at the school level. However, the noble Baroness says, "We have had enough of them and there will not be any more".
	Secondly, I turn to grammar schools. Ministers on the Government Benches both here and in another place have said: "We are neutral on grammar schools and we take no view on whether they stay or they go". Indeed, the right honourable Mr Blunkett has commented that, "there are only 166 of them and I have other things to worry about in education". However, the noble Baroness has revealed her petticoat on this matter in that she has argued against them philosophically. She has argued against their existence and why we should have them. She has argued that they are wrong.
	The noble Baroness made a comment with which I absolutely agree: all children should have the best possible quality of education appropriate to their needs. That is what I am arguing for here. A very bright child living in a part of the country where the schools are not able to offer the kind of highly academic, fast-stream education appropriate to that child's needs has nowhere to go. If there are some grammar schools, or if such a child could take advantage of something like the assisted places scheme to take it to an independent school, at least those provided an avenue. The latter scheme has already been denied to such children. Furthermore, over time, however painful it might be under the pernicious system supported by the noble Baroness and her colleagues, they would like to see the demise of our grammar schools. That is lamentable.
	Perhaps the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.

Lord Baker of Dorking: Before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may commiserate with her in her moral dilemma. She has made it clear that she loathes—perhaps that is too strong a word—grammar schools. She said that she attended such a school, and that she does not want to see a system of selection at the age of 11. I think she used words along the lines of, "very harmful to our education system".
	The noble Baroness is speaking as a Minister of the Government rather than as a Whip who is shared around the departments. The Minister is a representative of the Department for Education and Skills. She is therefore able to bring forward an amendment to fulfil her principles; namely, to abolish grammar schools. If she is so strongly opposed to grammar schools, then surely she should bring forward an amendment to the Bill to abolish them. She spoke most movingly about how she—if not loathed—disliked grammar schools and how they are harmful to the system.
	If the Minister really believes what she has said and really believes that this is how she wants to improve the education system, then it is up to her to move an amendment. But of course she will not do so. The Government introduced a proposal to hold ballots because they wanted to shift the moral dilemma from the Government to some other body. They did not themselves want to be responsible for making the decision. They did not want to stand by their principles. Instead they declared that, "We must find some other body that can make the decision for us". Hence the introduction of what in my view is a rigged system of parental ballots.
	However, that system has failed. It has failed not marginally, but totally and completely. In one ballot held in Ripon, those who, like the noble Baroness, Lady David, wanted grammar schools to be abolished, campaigned vigorously in that vein. That campaign was decisively rejected. In many other places they have not even been able to get sufficient numbers of people interested in the matter. Do not the Government realise that when something has failed, then they should perhaps recognise that? When they are in a hole, they should stop digging.
	The ballot system has failed and it would be better for it to be forgotten and much better for the legislation to be repealed. Then there would be no moral dilemma for the Minister. Although she may believe it, it would no longer be government policy.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to worry about my moral dilemma, but I do not feel that I have one. The reason I say that is because I made it clear that what I do not agree with is the 11-plus examination. The Government too have made their position clear on that. We believe that, as far as we possibly can, we should put parents in the driving seat when it comes to education. We know that parents want to do what is best for their children.
	On the question of the grammar school system, we do not want to spend our time dismantling a system because we believe that parents in the relevant areas should have a right to say what kind of system they wish to see in place. That is a straightforward attitude.
	The noble Lord may say that the ballot system has failed, but when considering the Ripon experience, surely those who support the grammar school system should be pleased with that result. We think that we have in place a system that represents the best way forward. We shall leave it there. It is for parents to use. Those who wish to do so can take advantage of it. The system creates stability.
	I recognise the comments made by the noble Baroness with regard to city technology colleges. Of course they are independent schools. We have built on their experience in terms of our academies; namely, looking at the different ways in which schools can be funded. However, academies will be bound by the admission arrangements in place in the local education authority.
	We believe that we have a consistent view in this area and so I have no moral dilemma. However, what I am not prepared to do is to start ripping apart structures and thus preventing parents from taking the opportunity to have their say. We believe that we have the balance right.

Baroness Blatch: That is a wholly illogical argument. Parents have the right to say whether they want the future of bright children to be secure in a grammar school, but they have no right to determine whether city technology colleges should continue to exist.
	The primary objection of the noble Baroness appears to be the 11-plus examination. As I have said, I think that that is a matter for debate. If the noble Baroness felt able to bring forward suggestions that such an examination should be changed to the age of 12 or 13 years, that would be more honest. My noble friend has even suggested bringing forward a policy to abolish those tests altogether.
	What I find extraordinary and illogical in this argument is that, while taking an examination and attending an interview to go to a grammar school smacks of winners and losers—some pass and gain a place while others do not—exactly the same thing happens in higher education. Young people apply through an examination system to get into a university. Some will succeed; others will not. Entry into what I may call the "Ivy League" universities is even more difficult. There will also be changes there. I understand that the Government are about to dumb down the higher education sector until it resembles the comprehensive system. We have debated the issue already; we shall do so again.
	The noble Baroness rightly said that the gaining of a petition can take up to a year. Beyond a year the matter has to be dropped and begun all over again. Therefore, the matter would take the best part of a year. If my amendment were taken at face value, the process would simply have to be initiated—a signature may not have been collected—and the moratorium would apply. I shall consider that point.
	The noble Baroness said that the process would take the best part of a year and, therefore, there would be no practical effect. I do not understand that. Even if the process took the best part of a year and I were to modify the provision so that it took effect at the end of the collection of signatures rather than at the initiating of them—in effect, that would be five years—it would have an effect. Those schools would be left alone for five years. I chose six years because that is the period for a child at a grammar school. At present, the life of a child in a grammar school is disrupted—this has occurred in the north-west—in his first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years. My amendment seeks to avoid that. Once there has been a major disruption in the school, with signatures collected by a petition which has failed, the school should then be left alone for another five to six years.
	The argument is that parents must have a say. If parents have a say with regard to bright children, why do they not have a say with regard to all the other talented people for whom specialist provision is made by the education system through city technology colleges, specialist schools and dance, music and drama schools? The policy seems to be borne out of politics only. I shall not press the amendment but we shall return to the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2002

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving the draft regulations, perhaps I may speak to the two draft statutory instruments together. The Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2002 contain the substance of the changes we wish to make to extend the role of dental hygienists and therapists. The Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Order 2002 provides that a particular restriction imposed by the Dentists Act on the range of duties and the fields of dentistry in which dental auxiliaries may work shall not apply to dental therapists.
	As the House will know, the Government are committed to modernising the regulation of the healthcare professions. That includes the dental health professions. Last November we debated an order made under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 which empowered the General Dental Council to modernise the constitution of its council and made continuing professional development mandatory for dentists. This draft legislation governing dental auxiliaries is the next step necessary for implementation of the regulatory section of our dental strategy, Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan.
	The draft legislation provides a means whereby we can extend the role of dental hygienists and dental therapists using delegated powers in the current Dentists Act. Our intention is to enable these staff to undertake a wider range of duties subject to varying degrees of supervision by the dentist/team leader. We also wish to permit dental therapists to work in all fields of dentistry.
	I turn first to dental hygienists and the detail of the amending regulations. Regulation 3 of the amending regulations extends the scaling power to enable a hygienist to treat a patient who has previously undergone a course of treatment and who, with the reduction in swelling of the gums, is found to have excess cement around teeth that have been crowned. A rotary instrument is a burr fitted on a drill which the hygienist can use in addition to a scaling probe.
	Next, we want dental hygienists to be able to undertake some impressions in dental work. The impressions we have in mind are those taken for study models at the outset of a course of orthodontic treatment.
	We also think it right that dental hygienists be able to undertake inferior dental nerve block anaesthesia used in the lower jaw where a deeper, more precisely located injection is needed. However, a dental hygienist will be allowed to administer only inferior block anaesthesia under the direct supervision of a dentist on the premises. We believe that they should have the power to replace crowns when they become loose in the course of an examination.
	Lastly, the proposed new Regulation 23(7) would allow a hygienist to carry out a scale and polish on a patient who had been sedated for a more invasive dental treatment. It would save the dentist from carrying out work that could be delegated and enable the patient to receive the full programme of treatment on one occasion without, one hopes, feeling any pain.
	I turn to dental therapists. Regulation 4 of the amending regulations amends Regulation 27 of the principal regulations which relate to dental therapists. Under the 1957 Dentists Act, therapists were allowed to work only in dental hospitals and community dental services because those were the only places where they were direct NHS employees—mainly clinics for the dental care of children and for people with special needs. Therapists cannot work in the general dental services because although these are NHS services they are delivered by self-employed independent practice owners. Nor can they work in private dental practices. We believe that that should be changed. The omission of paragraph 27(2)(a) of the principal regulations (under Regulation 4(3) of the amending regulations) will permit dental therapists to work in all fields of dentistry—the NHS general dental services, private practices or elsewhere.
	In many other respects the amendments in Regulation 4 provide for dental therapists the same range of extended duties provided for dental hygienists in Regulation 3. I should draw your Lordships' attention particularly to paragraph (1)(ec) inserted into Regulation 27 of the principal regulations relating to the pulp of the tooth which is below the enamel in the area of the roots of the tooth. This would enable, therefore, dental therapists to perform virtually all types of fillings required by young children with primary or, as they are sometimes known, deciduous teeth. The other amendments will enable them to make a substantial contribution to the dental care of adults, thereby using their training and skills to the maximum.
	As the House will know, the General Dental Council has been extremely helpful in this respect and has promoted these changes which the Government are pleased to support. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the orders which we very much welcome. I believe that they are in the interests of patients and that the extension of the duties of dental therapists and dental hygienists will enable them to make the most of their skills and experience and thus benefit the whole of the dental team.The Minister will know that the General Dental Council is currently in the process of reform through orders made under Section 60 of the Health Act to amend the Dentists Act. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question in that context. As part of the GDC's programme of reform the council published last year its proposals for the extension of professional regulation to the whole dental team. As the noble Lord will know, the proposal is to register professionals complementary to dentistry (PCDs) via a single PCD register. That will enable all members of the dental team to make the best use of their skills in the interests of patients.
	I understand that PCDs will register by protected titles, based upon their qualifications and experience, thereby ensuring that the public can distinguish those who are properly qualified from those who are not so qualified. Registration of the entire dental team will mean that all PCDs will be subject to the public protection measures that professional regulation offers, not least approved courses of training and robust fitness-to-practise procedures.
	I wonder whether the Minister is in a position this evening to give the House any indication of when such orders might come forward, and of how far the preparation for them has now progressed. I repeat my welcome for both the order and the regulations, and thank the Minister again for his introduction to them.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for so clearly outlining the content of these measures. This is a very new area for me, but I was most interested to hear his introductory remarks. Noble Lords on these Benches consider these provisions to be very sensible, and are very happy to support them.
	However, I should simply add that the training area is a subject upon which we should like to hear a little more. It would be most helpful if the Minister were able to enlighten us in that respect. We wholeheartedly support both the order and the regulations.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the speakers from both Front Benches opposite for the welcome that they have given to the legislation. I believe that there is a general recognition that this is part of a sensible process of deregulation and of developing good teamworking, while being prudent in ensuring that there is adequate supervision of delegated work to "dental auxiliaries", as they were formerly called. It is part of the modernisation of the dental service in general, which I know from previous debates the whole House wishes to see.
	I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the progress on the second Section 60 order. I can tell the noble Earl that it is in preparation, and that it will provide for the registration of all classes of professionals complementary to dentistry. It will also empower the General Dental Council to introduce a more flexible regime for defining the duties that the PCDs can undertake. Instead of a list of duties, like the one that we have just debated, the intention is that the PCDs will be able to carry the full range of duties for which they have been trained, and in which they are competent. Dental therapists and hygienists will benefit from those changes through further amendments to the legislation that we have discussed today.
	I am pleased to say that we intend to consult on the order in July. After the proper process of consultation, the order will no doubt be placed before the House either at the end of the year, or at the start of next year. I believe that progress has been made in that respect.
	On the subject of training, I very much agree that the training of dental therapists is most important. We must ensure that there is an adequate supply of dental therapists to allow for the effective delegation of work from dentists. That was one of the Government's earlier concerns as regards not moving too fast in this area. That is why dental auxiliaries undertook a very helpful survey of the potential take-up of such training. There are currently 54 training places available each year for dental therapists across dental schools. Most therapist courses offer dental hygienist qualifications at the same time.
	However, I have to say "no" to the further question raised in that respect. We shall look to developing those services and monitoring the generation of adequate supplies to go with the increased delegation for which this order provides.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Order 2002

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Correction of Birth and Death Entries in Registers or Other Records) Order 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the order before the House is designed to simplify the procedure for correcting information about paternity contained in birth and death registers. Before an error may be corrected, the law currently requires statutory declarations to be made by two people who could have registered the birth or death—these would usually be the parents of a child—or by two people with first-hand knowledge of the facts. Where a dispute about a child's paternity follows the breakdown of a relationship, those involved are not always prepared to co-operate with each other in making the statutory declarations required to correct the register.
	The purpose of the order is to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957, which apply to records of events that took place outside the United Kingdom among the Armed Forces and their dependants, to extend the means of correcting an error in the official record of a child's paternity.
	As the law stands, even where clear evidence exists to show that the wrong man has been named as the child's father, it is not possible to amend the register unless two suitable statutory declarations are obtained. That does not make sense to the families involved and can cause them problems when a birth certificate containing incorrect information has to be produced. There are sometimes existing court findings about paternity, made when maintenance or access disputes were settled. The proposed change would allow a specific court find of paternity to replace one of the statutory declarations needed for a correction to the record. No additional burden would be placed on those applying for a correction, because the provision for two statutory declarations to be accepted will continue. The acceptance of an existing court order in place of one of the statutory declarations is an additional facility.
	There has been extensive consultation on the proposals and careful scrutiny by the parliamentary deregulation and regulatory reform committees. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in your Lordships' House expressed no concerns about the order. However, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place expressed some concern that court findings of paternity should be required to be specific, and commented on the scope of the consultation. As a result, the Office for National Statistics undertook further consultation among groups with an interest in family law. Following observations by the Official Solicitor, the order was amended to provide that where a court finding of paternity was based on the sole evidence of the same person who made the required statutory declaration, corroborative evidence will be required.
	In practice, even where the person who is prepared to make the statutory declaration is the same person who has obtained the court order, there is often corroborative evidence available from the other person registered as the parent of the child in the form of correspondence that he or she has had with the registrar, or a statement to the court.
	The order has now been approved in the other place in its amended form. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended approval by this House. I confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.]

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches believe that this, too, is a most sensible order. It will certainly simplify what was a very technical and potentially disputative problem. We support the measure.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in explaining the order to the House. We on these Benches are entirely content with the measure in its amended form. However, I should perhaps pick up on one point that I hope the Minister will not consider unduly churlish.
	As the noble Lord will know, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place, at paragraph 11 of its report, expressed,
	"dissatisfaction at the way it [the order] has been handled by the Government Departments concerned".
	The order before the House is the last draft order to be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That measure will now be superseded in virtually every respect by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Accordingly, I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that appropriate lessons have been learnt from the unfortunate muddle to which this order was subject. In particular, I hope that he can reassure us that draft orders laid under the Regulatory Reform Act—I note that there are a number under consideration—will not suffer in the same way.
	I acknowledge that it is a relatively small point. As I said, we are entirely content with the substance of the order.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords and for the welcome that the order has received.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, rightly said that this is the last order under the 1994 Act. It is covered by the transitional provisions for deregulation orders included in the replacement Regulatory Reform Act. The Regulatory Reform Act came into force on 10th April 2001, last year, and replaced the provisions for deregulation orders with regulatory reform orders. The transitional provision to which I referred was for orders that had already been laid before Parliament by 10th April last year. This order, in its previous form, had been laid on 26th March 2001.
	I hope that the House will agree that the delay which has occurred has been entirely benign in the sense that, although it has taken a long time, there has been the additional consultation asked for and there have been amendments for which the Official Solicitor asked. As a result of this perhaps protracted—but, in my view, entirely correct—process, this is a better order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the first of the draft statutory instruments before the House today makes amendments to regulations governing decision-making and appeals for social security benefits, child support, housing benefit and council tax benefit and tax credits for Great Britain. Responsibility for tax credits lies with the Inland Revenue, and so the commissioners of the Inland Revenue will join in making these regulations.
	The second of the draft statutory instruments makes a number of identical amendments to those in the first set of regulations, but for tax credits in Northern Ireland only. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that tax credit issues for Northern Ireland are not devolved to the Assembly but are reserved to the Westminster Parliament and so are the responsibilities of the Inland Revenue. However, the amendments in the second set of regulations, in so far as they are needed for tax credit purposes, exactly mirror the provisions within the first set of regulations for which Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are responsible.
	With the permission of the House, I intend during the remainder of the debate to refer to individual regulations as they are numbered in the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. In doing so, however, your Lordships will appreciate that I am referring also to the corresponding regulations, where appropriate, within the tax credits Northern Ireland regulations.
	The amending regulations correct errors and omissions in the regulations that have come to light since they were subject to significant amendment in June 2000; they clarify existing provisions where there is uncertainty as to precise meaning; they implement minor changes in decision making and appeals policy now that we have had the opportunity to see the policy working in practice; and they make equivalent amendments, where appropriate, to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations.
	Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of explaining the purpose of each individual amendment. I would, however, like to draw your Lordships' attention to the broad areas covered by the amendments and to some of the more noteworthy changes.
	Regulations 3 to 6 make amendments to regulations dealing with decision-making and, in particular, to regulations providing for the revision of decisions. Regulations 7 to 11 make amendments to regulations dealing with general matters in relation to appeals, including time limits and rules for making appeals.
	Your Lordships may be interested, in particular, in Regulation 10, which provides that first-tier decision makers may admit late appeals where the conditions in the regulation are satisfied. At present, an application for an extension of time must be determined by a legally qualified panel member. This amendment will speed up the process for dealing with late appeals and will avoid having to refer cases to a legally qualified panel member where it is clear that the conditions for a late appeal are satisfied. To ensure justice for appellants, if a first tier decision maker is not inclined to allow a late appeal, or the application is made under the reasonable prospect of success condition, then the matter will be determined by a legally qualified panel member.
	Regulations 12 to 15 make amendments to regulations dealing with appeals procedure, striking out of appeals and oral hearings. Regulation 13, in particular, provides for tribunal clerks to reinstate certain appeals which they have struck out. At present, only a legally qualified panel member can reinstate a struck out appeal. This change will speed up the process for appellants and will be less costly. As with the amendment that I explained a moment ago, however, to ensure justice for appellants, if the clerk is minded not to reinstate a struck-out appeal the ultimate decision will be for a legally qualified panel member.
	Your Lordships may also be interested in Regulation 14, which provides that a panel member, other than the chairman, or a party to the proceedings may be present at an oral hearing by live television link. This is conditional upon the appellant agreeing that it can take place. This amendment, which is made possible by advances in new technology, will facilitate future attendance at oral hearings by live television link where it is difficult for an individual to be present in person.
	Regulations 16 to 20 amend regulations dealing with decisions of appeal tribunals and applications for leave to appeal to social security commissioners.
	Regulations 21 and 22 amend schedules dealing with social security decisions against which there is no right of appeal and qualifications of persons appointed to the panel to hear appeals. Regulation 21, in particular, inserts a list of non-appealable decisions made in accordance with the claims and payments regulations. Although we are not aware of any specific examples of people losing out, there has been some uncertainty about some appeal rights which were inadvertently missed under the existing provision. The new list therefore restores these appeal rights to the position that existed before the changes of 1999.
	Finally, Regulations 23 to 28 make amendments to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations to mirror the amendments to the main decisions and appeals regulations I have already outlined.
	I have tried to outline some of the more significant changes introduced by these regulations. Others are of a technical nature. I intend to leave it very much at that. However, I will be happy to deal with any points that your Lordships may wish to raise on any of the amendments.
	In conclusion, the regulations before us this evening make small but important changes and improvements to the decisions and appeals regulations. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation of the two orders. He did not mention that there are provisions in the orders for changing the title of the department from "Social Security" to "Work and Pensions", something which I have previously said was a mistake because "Work and Pensions" does not cover all aspects of the department's work whereas "Social Security" did.
	Moreover, it is true that earlier we were not in the situation that we are in now where, having abolished the Department of Social Security, it none the less keeps turning up, rather like the smile on the face of the Cheshire Cat after the Cheshire Cat has disappeared, in terms of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations and so on.
	That said, we on this side of the House welcome a number of the provisions. To mention one in particular, it is clearly important to clarify the time limits under Regulations 9 and 11, although I am not sure that "clarify" is not a euphemism for a change in the time limits—since one would have thought that the previous regulations were sufficiently clear. Similarly, we welcome the provision for the correction of accidental errors. But, again, it seems rather strange that that did not appear in the earlier regulations.
	So far as concerns the substance, I welcome the provision for oral hearings by live television link. I spent many hours in another place dealing with child support cases. One of the problems we faced was the difficulties experienced by certain people in appearing in person at an appeal—for example, the person might be disabled. Also, from time to time, the person would turn up for the appeal and perhaps the chairman or other members of the panel would not. So this provision should enable there to be some savings, not only in cost but in terms of improvement as regards convenience.
	The Explanatory Memorandums in the two orders are not precisely the same. In the first, the reference is:
	"associated amendments apply to tax credits and social security benefits"—
	without specifying what they are. The Northern Ireland regulations are clearer. They include the reference:
	"in relation to working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit".
	What puzzles me is that, under the Tax Credits Bill which is now before the House—but for the fiasco as regards the drafting we should have been debating it this afternoon, but shall now be debating it on Thursday—the two credits referred to in the Northern Ireland regulations, which I imagine are the ones referred to in the other regulations, although the Explanatory Memorandum does not say so, are both about to be "superseded". The Bill refers to credits which are "superseded" by tax credits being abolished. One of these is the working families' tax credit; the other is the disabled person's tax credit. Why does this order include a reference to those if they are about to be abolished in the Bill that is before the House? Will there be a further set of regulations; or should some provision have been included in these regulations to allow for a likely change? At all events, it seems a rather strange moment to introduce the regulations if in fact there are about to be changes in the near future in other legislation.
	Other than that, these are helpful, relieving provisions. We on this side of the House welcome them.

Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I thank the Department of Social Security—the Department for Work and Pensions; I beg the noble Lord's pardon—for all its usual courtesies. It is one of the most courteous, efficient and well-run departments in Whitehall. In particular, I thank it for its latest courtesy, which is only a few minutes old—namely, providing me with a spare copy of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. I had foolishly mislaid my copy during the course of the day. It is most welcome.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, once told me that I was like the little girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. I do not know which the Minister will find me to be today, but I hope that I may have some cautious optimism on the point.
	There is nothing in the contents of the regulations to which I wish to object. I should like to give a particularly warm welcome to the contents of Regulation 2, dealing with partners and couples, and to the contents of Regulation 13, which the Minister covered thoroughly, dealing with the striking out of appeals. Perhaps I may also be permitted to give a personal and proprietary welcome to Regulation 10. This regulation embodies an amendment which I tabled at every stage of the child support regulations. When we debated the first Bill, in 1991, it would have come up at two o'clock in the morning, so I did not move it. I then found that it had been tabled for the next stage of the Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In 2001, I was not quite so lucky, but I have got there now. If the Minister will forgive me—I mean no discourtesy by this—it reminds me of one of my father-in-law's favourite First World War songs:
	"The butterfly has wings of gold
	The firefly of flame, The little flea has no wings at all, But he gets there just the same". We have this provision now; it is law, and I am delighted.
	The regulations raise another issue—and I believe that this is the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins: why now? It is the issue of flexibility. Ministers always invoke "flexibility" when they introduce regulations. Flexibility is what Ministers rely on whenever they cannot have a hot dinner—and I hope that the noble Lord will have one later.
	I remember one occasion, when wearing my other hat, trying to work out for the 17th century what were the general principles that made some matters require a statute and others not. One of them turned out to be simply that the thing that needed to be reversed had been done by legislation. That seems to apply here. We need new regulations because a great many provisions embodied in previous regulations have to be changed because they have become out of date. So regulation begets regulation, which begets regulation, which begets regulation—until we have a veritable house of cards.
	The flexibility is very much that of the spider's web. I say that as one who claims several different descents from Robert the Bruce, so when I talk about spiders' webs I take them seriously. This "flexibility"—more and more regulation—reminds me of the story of the black pudding. Two Czech peasants, so very poor that they were at subsistence level, were visited by a fairy, who said that they could have any three wishes that they wanted. The man said: "I'd like a black pudding". The woman said: "What a silly wish. I hope it sticks to the end of your nose". So they had to use a third wish to get it off. So the flexibility created by regulations is somewhat illusory.
	I make no comment on the Northern Ireland regulations, on which I am not an expert. I never claim the authority to speak on Northern Ireland if I can possibly avoid it. However, I have taken advice on it from Elizabeth Hanna in the Whips Office, who is a rising politician in her own right from a Northern Irish background, and I understand that she has taken advice from other Northern Irish sources in some number. I am assured that the Northern Ireland regulations give no more cause for anxiety than the British ones. I am happy to welcome them both.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. The Civil Service is extraordinarily efficient. Civil servants provide Ministers not only with an opening speech, but with a closing one. It begins:
	"I thank noble Lords for their comments and the good-natured and constructive approach they have taken".
	So, clearly, there was a tremendous amount of good-natured anticipation in the Department for Work and Pensions. I am genuinely grateful for the warm welcome that both noble Lords have given to the regulations. The points raised are sensible and fine ones. When I read through the regulations I had similar reflections.
	I was particularly taken with the point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made about flexibility. The noble Earl is right; and he is probably right also about regulations always begetting yet more regulations.
	The If you think our decision is wrong leaflet shows that the rate of change is more rapid than I had anticipated. The leaflet was originally produced in April 2001 and was obviously so popular—or had become out of date—that it had to be replaced by the same leaflet number in October 2001. The leaflets have to reflect the begotten regulations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit. The explanation is that both share access to the decision-making and appeals process and the unified appeals tribunals with the Department for Work and Pensions. That is why it is necessary to make these amendments to ensure that their operation is consistent. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand why the change is being made towards the Inland Revenue away from the Department for Work and Pensions, because the tax credits are to be operated by the Treasury and not by the department. However, I do not understand why we are legislating at this moment for two tax credits that the Government's plans suggest are about to be abolished under the Tax Credits Bill, which we should have been discussing this afternoon.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, probably the point is that we have to deal with the law as it is until it changes. No doubt this is a transitional point. The explanation is probably that it is covering a transitional situation. No doubt advice is speeding its way towards me as we speak.

Earl Russell: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, provided a perfect illustration of why, yet again, regulations beget regulations?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that tax credit appeals will continue to be dealt with under the Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations for some period after the Tax Credits Bill comes into force.
	I do not think that any other points of substance have been raised. I am grateful for the points that were raised. The regulations may be mundane, but they play an important part in our attempts to modernise and improve things. I was particularly taken by the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the TV link, which will ensure greater access. People who are able to put their case directly on appeal or who are fortunate enough to be represented have a far higher success rate in the appeals process. Although it costs any government, it is most important that people are properly and fairly represented. If we can achieve that aim, it is all to the good and in the best interests of natural justice.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits (Decisions and Appeals) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.33 p.m.]

Education Bill

House again in Committee.

Baroness David: moved Amendment No. 174:
	Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 3
	"Admission" in this Chapter refers to the admission by any potential pupil applying to enter any school in the area of the local education authority, especially those living in the area."

Baroness David: The purpose of this amendment is to confirm that the LEA is responsible for providing a place for every child in its area. One of the most important functions of the LEA is to secure sufficient schools to provide appropriate education to meet the age, aptitude, ability and special educational needs of pupils of the area. The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Government to confirm that the Bill does not threaten that historic responsibility. If children are not in school, their education and development will be affected and they will be at risk of getting a criminal record.
	There are two areas of concern: children out of school through exclusion, and children of asylum seekers. First, I shall speak to the subject of children out of school. LEAs have a duty, from September 2002, to provide full-time education for children out of school. Pupil referral units are classified as schools. There is therefore a fear that there will be increased pressure on LEAs to provide for children at PRUs rather than to find the resources to fund education for these children at mainstream schools. Will the Government give an assurance that they are committed to maximising the number of children who are educated in mainstream schools?
	Secondly, as the Government have today apparently announced the location of a number of accommodation centres, this seems a particularly appropriate time to talk about the children of asylum seekers. The Government are proposing as part of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to exclude and segregate asylum seekers and their dependants from the community. Indeed, Clause 30(1) of that Bill states that asylum seekers and their children who are resident in accommodation centres,
	"shall not be treated as part of the population".
	The NUT has stated that it,
	"believes that segregating asylum-seeking children from children in mainstream schools contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Asylum-seeking children are children first and asylum seekers second. Their educational rights should be vigorously protected irrespective of immigration status. Education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority".
	The Government's education proposals seriously undermine asylum-seeking children's right to a decent education by segregating them from other children in mainstream schools. Children in mainstream schools are the key to the rapid rehabilitation of asylum-seeking children, many of whom will be traumatised by their experience of feeling persecuted or suffering torture. Although issues in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will clearly have to wait until the Bill reaches your Lordships' House, the Government may wish to feel the current strength of feeling about the proposals. I am very interested to discover the attitude of the rather few noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment to the status of asylum-seeking children. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We would like the concept of admission in the amendment to be further explained. As for the specific issue of asylum seekers, although the issue is certainly raised in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, it is not, as I understand it, raised in this Bill. However, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that it is quite shocking that we are not seeking to integrate these people into our school system. Their appeals may be pending, but many of them will be staying on in this country. It is vital that, for the time that they are in this country, we make them welcome and treat them in exactly the same way as we treat our own citizens. We should do our best to integrate them happily into our society. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for referring to locality issues. We recognise the need for children to be educated in a locality that suits them. However, we also recognise that that is not necessarily within the local education authority area. Parents often live in one local education authority area but have a preference for a school in another area, and sometimes even for the nearest school which may be in a neighbouring authority's area. Therefore, applications to a local education authority's schools from parents living outside that area must be considered alongside those of parents living within that area. As the Committee will be aware, that is particularly the case in areas such as London.
	I accept what my noble friend is saying about the need to ensure that children can be educated in mainstream education and to make sure that children who are excluded from school, for example, continue to be educated properly. We are pleased to have a commitment to ensure that from September 2002 all children excluded from school permanently will receive full-time education. That will either be in pupil referral units or in other schools.
	The issue of asylum children is not included in the Bill but is an area that we have to examine carefully. As that is not an area of legislation with which I am dealing, I am reluctant to go into the detail of that. However, I shall make a couple of general remarks. We need to ensure that children receive education within a system that makes sense. We shall seek to ensure that children who arrive in this country are able to receive education, bearing in mind the circumstances in which they arrive and their own particular needs. Within the Department for Education and Skills we are looking closely at how we take that forward. However, as I say, I do not wish to discuss the detail of the relevant legislation as I cannot give the Committee an accurate picture.

Lord Jones: May I tempt my noble friend the Minister to consider giving a little more detail in order that we may consider the legislation which she proposes?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The amendment we are discussing refers to,
	"the admission by any potential pupil applying to enter any school in the area of the local education authority, especially those living in the area".
	I believe that I have responded to the amendment. We have a long history of parents choosing schools across local education authority boundaries, not least in our cities, as they often live close to a school which is in a neighbouring authority's area. The admissions framework which is already in place, which will be strengthened by the measures in the Bill, is designed to ensure that parental preference is met to the maximum possible extent. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I ask a question following on from the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I am not sure whether it is necessary to have legislation for the Government to educate asylum seekers' children in four separate establishments. Is it possible for the Secretary of State to do that without legislation? If it requires legislation, it seems to me that there is a vehicle before the Chamber—this Bill—that could deal with that provision. From what the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Sharp, said, I suspect that the Committee would like to debate the policy and the intention of corralling asylum seekers' children in four areas and not allowing them—I shall not use the word "swamp"—to overwhelm LEA schools in other areas where they may initially reside.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: If the noble Baroness would like to table an appropriate amendment to the Bill, I should be happy to debate those issues. My purpose this evening is to debate the issues that are laid before me. My understanding of the amendment we are discussing is that it concerns children who are being educated in our mainstream schools. I am therefore not able to give the detail that I should be happy to give on the asylum issue. I should be reluctant to mislead the Committee by referring to a matter on which I do not have appropriate information. However, I should be more than happy to debate that matter at an appropriate moment. I hope that that reassurance will satisfy the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstands me. I am not advocating an amendment to the Bill; nor am I advocating necessarily that the Bill should refer to the matter we are discussing. I simply asked whether legislation was needed in order for the Secretary of State to do what we understand the Secretary of State wants to do; that is, to have concentrated areas—so far, four areas have been designated—where these young people will be educated. I am not sure whether that can be done without legislation. If so, it is not appropriate for me to proceed further. If it requires legislation, it seems to me that there is a Bill before the Chamber which could cope with that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not know the answer to that matter, but I am happy to find it out for the noble Baroness. However, I am sure that she appreciates that I am reluctant to speculate on that matter for all the right reasons.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I have entered the debate late. However, I wish to ask a question of the Minister. My daughter has been teaching in a school with a large ethnic mix in east London and has faced considerable problems, the largest of which is that there are no referral units for disturbed children. She has two problems: first, a large number of children in her class who speak different languages; and, secondly, there is no way to refer disturbed children to a special unit that could help with their problems. Will the Minister assure me that she is giving that problem attention?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord on that matter. Later we shall discuss the whole question of children who are excluded from school. We have two measures to tackle the matter: first, the learning support units which are being provided in schools are specifically designed to support children within schools before they reach the point where they might be excluded; and, secondly, pupil referral units. Further, some of our special schools are able to work with these children. It is a continuum of education. We are trying to find ways to support our children at every stage so that they remain within the education system but receive the right kind of care and support appropriate to their needs.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but the problem in Tower Hamlets is that referral units do not exist. Many teachers are experiencing problems and are abandoning the teaching profession. The noble Baroness made an agreeable statement and I agree with her sentiments, but can she assure me in stronger terms that teachers in east London are getting support where they are dealing with Somalis and Bengalis, for example, and are under enormous pressure? Teachers are suffering.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry if I am not telling the noble Lord precisely what he wants to hear. I am well aware that behavioural issues are of great concern to teachers. Additional burdens are created for teachers who deal with children who have differing needs. I was merely trying to illustrate the kind of measures that we are taking to help that situation. Some of the schools in Tower Hamlets have a remarkable record of working with children of all backgrounds and achieving a great deal. My hope is that the school to which the noble Lord referred will benefit from that experience. As I said, we shall require local education authorities by September to provide full-time education in pupil referral units. We are moving towards putting learning support units in as many places as we possibly can, as speedily as we can. I appreciate that the problem is not solved. However, we are tackling it. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some comfort. We want our teachers to realise that we are working closely with them.
	Before the noble Lord speaks again, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that to achieve what is included in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill we certainly do need primary legislation.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I acknowledge and accept what the Minister said. However, things are not as good as she thinks. I hope that she and her department will devote attention to Tower Hamlets as regards the matter I am discussing. Bland statements do not affect the situation of a teacher who is doing his or her best with children from a variety of ethnic backgrounds but has no referral unit to which to refer pupils. It is interesting that the Minister does not tell us how many referral units Tower Hamlets has.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I did not tell the noble Lord how many referral units Tower Hamlets has because I do not have that information to hand. He will forgive me; there are so many pieces of information that I could carry around with me. I shall write to him with those details, as I always do.
	I am not trying to make bland statements. I recognise how difficult the matter is. I spend my time, as do the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, and other Members of the Committee, visiting and working with schools to identify ways in which we can support them. I am simply saying, "Yes, we recognise that there is a problem but we have some of the answers". We are working closely with schools and education authorities to provide them.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Minister said that it is clear that we need primary legislation in order to carry through the requirements of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Does that mean that it would be sensible for us to amend the Bill? The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is primary legislation. Does it contain primary legislation relating to education?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can answer that question with certainty. That Bill contains appropriate provisions dealing with education. I am sure that Members of the Committee will want to participate in the relevant debates.

Baroness David: I knew that this would be an interesting and difficult debate. I am grateful for the support that I have received, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am relieved to hear from the Minister that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill contains provisions that are devoted to education. When it comes to this House, we can explore this matter more thoroughly—it certainly needs exploring. People feel very strongly about it. I understand the associated difficulties. Difficult problems would arise if a large number of children arrived in a small area, such as a rural area. One does not want to make things difficult for the teachers in the school where the children might go but, on the other hand, it would be a very great mistake to segregate them. They need to get to know the language if they are going to stay here for any length of time and they need to be educated in the ways of the country.
	We shall doubtless return to this matter later in this Bill and in relation to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 44 [Admission forums]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 175:
	Page 29, line 33, after "shall" insert "if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in its area"

Baroness Blatch: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178A, which will be spoken to by other Members of the Committee.
	This amendment is very similar to that on schools forums and it applies the same principle. I know that this is a vexed issue and I suspect that I shall not receive too much support from around the Committee. It would allow local schools and governing bodies to choose whether they want an admission forum to be set up in their area. It is important to give them a view on whether they want one or not; the choice should not be automatic.
	In some parts of the country, admissions is not a big issue for local areas. The schools work well together and with the local authorities, and the parents are satisfied. The issues involved in this regard are similar to those raised in our debate on schools forums in that what is right for one area does not necessarily apply to all local authorities. My point is not that it is me, LEAs or the Government who say that there should not be admissions forums automatically, although I believe that. The amendment would allow a majority of the governing bodies of maintained schools in an area to decide that they want an admissions forum. In that case, one would be set up, and that would be right.
	If there is a problem with admissions in an area, the schools will be the first to know about that. It is for schools to realise that the problem is sufficient to warrant the setting up of an admission forum. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 176 and 178A, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
	Amendment No. 176 would insert into the provisions on admission forums the phrase,
	"and city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, city academies and academies".
	It is needed because the admissions forum, unlike the schools forum, does not echo the boundaries of the LEA; it is a sub-area of most LEA areas. In my own town of Guildford, we already have an informal grouping of schools—they get together and to some extent discuss admissions. Those informal groupings already exist. The amendment would make those informal groupings into more formal groupings—that is what an admission forum will be. That makes sense because genuine problems arise sorting out admissions between secondary schools of different types—for example, with regard to foundation schools and maintained schools. It makes sense for people to get together and to sort out admissions. I have no time for schools forums but admissions forums have a valid function.
	When looking at the overall area, it is important for all schools in the area to be included. At the moment, city technology colleges and city academies are not included although they play an important part in some towns. The admission arrangements in Southwark, for example, will be considerably affected by two new academies, one of which is in place and one of which will be set up very shortly. They are being set up deliberately to serve their local communities and are not to be exclusive in any way. We strongly feel that it is important for such technology colleges and academies to be included in the admissions procedures.
	I shall also speak to Amendment No. 178A. We touched on it in our debate on the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on faith schools with a religious bias. The amendment emerged from discussions about what, if anything, we should table in Committee on the issue of faith schools. As I said earlier, we should recognise that the concept of a quota is not the right way forward. Nevertheless, we feel that it is right for those schools—which are maintained schools in that they are 100 per cent funded in terms of revenue costs from the public purse—to recognise that questions arise about the community that they serve. We should consider whether it is possible for them to balance the needs of the community with the need to serve the faith community that they represent and which helps to support those schools through capital funds. Within the framework of admission forums, the amendment seeks to balance the requirements of the faith community and suggests that the school should advance proposals on the number of places to be taken up by members of a faith. But, equally, the amendment seeks to ask the admission forum, which must give advice to the local authority on these issues, to take into account not only that but also the need for places in the area and the demand for places in faith-based schools.
	Therefore, the amendment is a deliberate attempt to reach what we consider to be a reasonably acceptable compromise. In putting it forward, we held discussions with members of all faiths, including the Muslim faith, and found that it was largely acceptable to them. We hope that it might also find favour with the Committee.

Lord Jones: I am pleased to follow the reasonable line of questioning in relation to these amendments. My noble friend the Minister will know that this Bill is 214 pages long and that today Her Majesty's Government have proposed two forums. Are any more forums proposed in the Bill?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the arguments which were first put to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Amendment No. 175. In that amendment, the noble Baroness argued that whether or not an admission forum is established should be a matter for local discretion. That is logical and consistent and coherent with the arguments that she advanced earlier in our proceedings in the context of schools forums being a matter for local decision-making.
	I believe that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, we should trust schools to work these matters out for themselves. I agree with the noble Baroness. I can recollect instances where admissions policies became very hot political questions in a locality and in other parts—indeed, in the very same city—they had never been an issue at all. Whether or not they were hot political questions depended very much on where one lived and what the catchment areas were. If there were local demand for such a forum, it could be innovative and helpful. Therefore, I believe that the Government are on to a point here and one which, if there is local demand for it, should be met.
	I believe that that approach is wholly in contradiction with that being adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in Amendment No. 178A. That amendment seeks to impose from outside the requirement on faith schools to observe certain procedures so far as concerns admissions. We should be very clear about this. It is an insidious attack on the independence and integrity of Church schools, whose governing bodies at present determine these matters for themselves in accordance with the ethos of their schools and in accordance with the policies of their diocese and the authorities that administer those schools.
	I believe that this is part of a drip, drip, drip approach. It is an approach which has been brought forward instead of that originally adopted—I shall return to this point in a moment—which tried to impose rigid quotas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned. Although I am grateful that the noble Baroness has moved back to my original proposition, I believe that this comes from the same philosophical approach and should therefore be opposed. When one is run over by a tank, it is fairly self-evident that sometimes the devil arrives in carpet slippers. Therefore, one should be very much more suspicious of him on those occasions.
	The first part of Amendment No. 178A seems to be fairly benign. It proposes that a voluntary-aided school may propose to the admission forum that a certain proportion of places within the school should be offered, as a priority, to members of the faith promoted by the school. If admission forums are to be established, as the Government have proposed in Clause 44, this part of the amendment can help to ensure that they respect the religious character of voluntary-aided schools within their area. I do not believe that any of us has any great problem with that.
	However, any potential benefit of such faith-based input to the admission forum is fatally compromised by the second part of the amendment. When the admission forum, after receiving a proposal from a voluntary-aided school, offers its advice to the local education authority on admission arrangements, it must consider the need for places in the area and the demand for places in faith-based schools. In effect, therefore, it can completely disregard the proposal from the faith-based school and offer advice that could seriously dilute the ethos and character of the school.
	The amendment fails to recognise that the admission authorities of voluntary-aided schools already take into account factors such as the need for places in their area and the demand for places in faith-based schools. The Catholic Church, in particular, which was referred to in our earlier debate, has demonstrated its willingness to relinquish schools where demographic trends and the needs of the local community indicate that alternative provision is needed. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when she said that the Government are already in discussion with the diocesan authorities and that a constructive and positive approach is being taken to deal with the tiny number of cases where such a situation arises.
	In many areas where it has been the wish of the school trustees, the governing bodies and the local community, and where space has been available, Catholic schools have welcomed pupils from beyond the Catholic community. In our earlier debate I cited the figures. Nationally the figure is approximately 20 per cent, and in some diocese more than one in three pupils are not Catholic but are in Catholic schools. I believe that that mirrors the situation in Church of England and other schools, too. It shows that the populations in those schools are diverse and that they represent the communities that they serve.
	During our Second Reading debate, I believe that an erroneous impression was given of some of those schools when it was suggested that only children from very privileged backgrounds would be admitted to them. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that children from rough backgrounds or, indeed, those of a particular colour would be refused admission. I have spoken to teachers who work in those schools and who have read those remarks. I know that they found them very offensive and considered them to be a considerable attack on their morale and on what goes on in those schools. I believe that anyone who looks at such schools will realise that it is a very unfair picture.
	Therefore, schools should remain free to decide these questions for themselves. The amendment before the Committee tonight seeks to achieve the exact opposite by vesting authority in the proposed new admission forums. Too often in the debate thus far subterfuge has characterised the tactics of those who are fundamentally opposed to faith-based schools. There is an echo here of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said to the Committee earlier on the issue of grammar schools. I believe that it is more straightforward if we say exactly where we stand in relation to these matters.
	In the other place the idea of quotas was put forward and that faith-based schools should be obliged to admit a minimum of 25 per cent of their pupils from other faiths, notwithstanding that the vast majority of schools already do that. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House the idea of catchment areas was put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, warned that,
	"The Liberal Democrats will propose an amendment to the Bill that makes it unlawful for any school in receipt of state funding to deny access to a child from its local community on the grounds of faith or lack of faith".—[Official Report, 11/3/02; col. 631.]
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, that idea appears to have been quietly shelved, perhaps out of recognition that it would encourage the creation of religious ghettos around certain faith-based schools, the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, warned about in his remarks earlier. That would be the effect of the proposal mooted at Second Reading and it would achieve quite the opposite of what the proposer seeks to achieve.
	Notwithstanding those points, Amendment No. 178A has now been laid before the Committee. We can see from where the idea of admission forums has come and the effect of those forums if they have the power to advise local education authorities on the admission arrangements of faith-based schools. Much would depend on who are the members of the forums, what particular ideologies and issues they pursue and what axes they want to grind, which sadly often is the case. One cannot help but wonder why, instead of the subtle variations on a theme, we do not simply hear a straightforward declaration of fundamental opposition to the existence of faith-based schools.
	Of course, clarity is not at all popular with the electorate, many of whom send their children to faith schools. Not surprisingly they are aghast when they discover that some politicians would like to shut down their children's schools. That is an issue in areas such as Richmond upon Thames and in my own city of Liverpool. Accusations that such schools encourage divisiveness and social fragmentation causes widespread dismay within the teaching profession in those schools and it damages morale.
	This amendment has been justified by the argument that Church schools are non-integrated. That simply is not true. Many faith-based schools are already beacons of social integration. It is a misconception that faith-based schools are like little educational islands that do not mix with others in the educational or wider community. Many of our teachers and pupils play a full and active role within their local education authorities. Catholic schools in particular have been enthusiastic participants in initiatives such as the setting up of specialist schools and sharing expertise under the beacon school arrangement.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says, but I believe that he is maligning what I said in the earlier debate and in this debate. I have not suggested that Roman Catholic schools are not inclusive. In the earlier debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I said that there were few schools—I believe the problems apply to only a very few schools—where there is a problem of excluding those from the immediate local neighbourhood in which there is some demand. That applies to an extremely small number of schools and to imply that there is a plot on our part, rather than a genuine attempt to try to arrive at some kind of compromise is totally unfair.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is upset by what I said. One can refer only to the record and in our earlier debate I quoted the former Liberal Democrat spokesman on education in another place, Mr Don Foster, who said that in an ideal world there would be no faith schools. He said that he would be in favour of, for example, the abolition of the daily act of worship. We know that a proposal was put forward by the party of the noble Baroness in another place which sought to impose rigid quotas—a 25 per cent quota. We have heard what the noble Baroness has said this evening and I have already paid tribute to her for pulling back from that position. I reiterate that comment.
	However, in her remarks a moment ago she indicated that there are some schools where she believes that those children who come from a faith background should not be given a place in a school in preference to people who live closest to the school. That would be a discriminatory measure against the children of that faith who live in that area. That is an issue of concern to parents who have children in such schools. I believe it would be wrong of the noble Baroness not to appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in his intervention, that there will not be widespread interest in these debates outside the Committee as there has been during the course of the recent local elections.
	My point is that we should look to those schools to see what a fantastic contribution they make and praise them accordingly. In Ofsted's annual report, for example, HMCI's list of "particularly successful schools"—Ofsted's phrase—included a high number of Catholic schools. Ninety secondary schools were listed and of those 15 were Catholic; 206 primary schools were listed and of those 42 were Catholic. When one considers that Catholic schools provide 10 per cent of schools nationally, it is clear that Catholic schools are included to a higher proportion than their overall share of the maintained sector.
	Earlier in our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, as have others in a previous debate, that if we go down the route of supporting such schools the result could be the kind of situation that persists in Northern Ireland. The examples of Burnley and Oldham have also been cited. I want to refer to them briefly.
	Over the years I have been involved with interdenominational Christian groups in Northern Ireland who have sought to establish integrated Christian schools. I supported those initiatives because I believe that, where there is sectarianism, that becomes the priority. That is not the case in England and Wales and we need to be clear about that.
	But even in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Centre for Integrated Education—an organisation which works to promote Catholic and Protestant co-operation—says,
	"Our segregated education system has not delivered our troubles—that's rubbish. Sectarianism is the lava below the surface, and whether we had an integrated school system or not, that lava would erupt".
	We also heard reference made earlier today to the situation in Oldham and Burnley. I took the trouble a few months ago to visit Oldham. I was telling the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about that visit during the break. I met some of the teachers in the schools there. I listened carefully to what Lorna Fitzsimons, the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, said when she went to review the situation there. She said that the problems did not arise from Church schools; they arose from children coming from state schools who had not been integrated into the community to learn about co-existence with children from minorities.
	I have seen the evidence of the teaching of civic values, of integration, of diversity in schools in places like Oldham. And we have to face the serious issue of how we promote shared civic values. All Members of the Committee should concentrate on that question rather than trying to impose rigid quotas or admissions systems which are an attack on the independence of Church schools and are seen that way.
	The Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris, put it well when she said,
	"the strength of faith schools for those who have a faith is a shared value base—a sense of purpose, mission and being".
	I believe that that is the principal reason why Church and faith schools remain so popular in our country today.
	In summary, Amendment No. 178A is unnecessary. It is indicative of the various attempts that have been made to date to disparage faith-based education. I hope that the Government oppose the amendment.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I support the noble Lord, Lord Alton. There is a long history in English education that we allow the Churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church but also my own Church, to support faith schools. They have put enormous amounts of money into doing just that. And traditionally they have been allowed to decide their own admissions policies.
	I can only speak for my own Church; I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church which has invested more money than my Church. But many faith schools admit enormous numbers of people from other faiths. An amendment which, for the first time in 140 years, allows the Government to impose on Church schools their own admissions procedures is quite a revolutionary proposal. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. It interferes with a right that the Church schools have always had and one which is highly regarded throughout the whole of Europe. I hope therefore that Church schools will be allowed to retain their integrity.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to take a middle way on this matter, as one would expect from these Benches. It is possible to see a Trojan horse here. But I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the consultations she had with a number of us in seeking to frame this amendment.
	The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I am not 100 per cent in favour of her proposal. But if we are to have admissions forums—that is yet to be decided—and they are to do their work, then they have to take cognisance of the existence of Church or faith schools. It would be irresponsible of them to behave as though they were sharing out children among community schools rather than dealing with the whole of the maintained sector.
	I take issue with the use of the word "propose" in the first part of Amendment No. 178A. I prefer to use "inform". I want to see the voluntary-aided schools participating in the education of children. As Members of the Committee have said, many of them carry out all the requirements asked for in terms of inclusiveness and taking children who have parents of other faiths or of no faith. That is certainly the case in my diocese, particularly at the primary level.
	We are dealing with that area of life where real choices have to be made. We are dealing with success. When we are at the bottom of a pile, then few choices lie before us. But when something is popular or successful, then those who are in charge of it, be they the governors or those who dispose of education in various ways, have to make real choices as to how they proceed. I am delighted to be standing in your Lordships' Chamber tonight espousing what is a popular cause with parents the length and breadth of the country, which is why we in the Anglican Church have such great difficulty in accommodating at secondary level those who would like to attend them. In saying that, we remain faithful to our trust deeds—to be distinctive but inclusive. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just said, we have educated millions of children whose parents have not espoused our faith.
	As to the second part of the amendment—and we were not able to discuss this beforehand because it has only just occurred to me—what happens if the forum says, "No way, oh brothers and sisters in the faith schools and the Church schools", and takes a draconian line in its attitude to those schools before the local education authority?
	I am relatively content even with that if the forum is purely advisory and if there is some appeal system, which I think there is. Therefore, I am looking for some way to share in the issue of how pupils are educated which meets parental choice whether or not they belong to the Churches or to the faith communities; which meets the desire of people who realise that they want this kind of education for their children; and which meets the needs of the local community. The amendment goes some way to engage that issue. However, I should like to see the governing bodies of voluntary aided schools informing the forum of their policy. Then, if appropriate, listening to what the forum might want to say. Ultimately, however, the governors of those schools have responsibility for the faith quotient over the local aspect, which most of them exercise extremely well at the present time.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may reply to the right reverend Prelate. The admissions forums are purely advisory. They cover all maintained schools. The definition of "maintained schools" includes both voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools, but of course voluntary aided schools are their own admissions authorities. New Section 85A(1)(b) says,
	"advising the admission authorities for maintained schools".
	Therefore, the whole idea of the amendment is to advise the governors of the voluntary aided schools where they feel there is a conflict between, say, the needs of the community and the needs of the faith and ask them to consider it. Obviously it is only advice, and ultimately those who decide, as I understand it, on the admissions to such schools are the schools themselves.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: The noble Baroness takes my point exactly. I wanted to have on the record that we are talking about advice and that the governors of a voluntarily aided school would not necessarily be bound by that advice, although I would hope that they would listen carefully to what people were trying to say.

Lord Lucas: My Amendment No. 177 is in this group. Perhaps I may first say that I do not want to abolish faith schools. My position is very much the reverse. I want more of them. I want sufficient numbers of them so that those parents who do not spend every Sunday going to a church of a particular denomination can nonetheless find places in church schools if that is what they want for their children.
	The fact that only 20 or 30 per cent of places in Catholic schools are given to non-Catholics says to me that there are not enough Catholic schools and that we should have a few more. To that extent, I very much support what was proposed earlier—I forget how many months ago now—that we should have an ability to create more Church schools. Later, I suspect, we shall turn to that matter, but I should like to see that process happening. What I do not like is parents who want a Church education for their child being excluded merely because they are, in a way, "sinners" or incapable of beliefs themselves.
	That is my position on the matter. I do not understand how admissions forums are meant to affect this. They are just advisory bodies. They are a place where schools can get together and talk. If other schools find a problem with a faith-based school admitting only those of its faith, I am sure that they will discuss that without the need for Amendment No. 178A.
	I would certainly not like the idea that a body such as this could start messing with the admissions powers of voluntary aided schools—they are for the Churches. My aim is to influence the Government to create a mechanism for more Church schools and to influence the Churches by saying, "Come on. Part of the 1944 settlement is that you should provide education for children who want such education, not just for children of people who are already adherents of your faith". That is part of the deal. The kind of education that they provide should be available to those who want it rather than just those who qualify for it. That is the difference between being a private and a state school.
	I tabled Amendment No. 177 to ask how, under the admissions forum arrangements, we will deal with the situation in which the natural school for people is not within the LEA but in the neighbouring LEA. Obviously, that happens a lot in London, but it also happens in the country. For example, I can think of Dorset primary schools that are half a mile from a secondary school in Hampshire, which is where people would naturally go, rather than 15 miles the other away to the nearest Dorset secondary school. How will we deal with such cross-border questions? I merely ask the question.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I apologise for rising again. I speak as the governor of Downside, which admits non-Catholic pupils. Why should not faith schools admit people of their own faith? We all concede that they admit people of variety of faiths, but my noble friend Lord Lucas seems to think—I may be misjudging him—that it is wrong to favour people of their own faith. Of course they admit other people—that is a fact. But there seems to be an argument in this Chamber that it is wrong for people who believe in a faith to go to a school of their own faith. What is wrong with that? It should be allowed.
	The schools have shown themselves generous. Downside admits Anglicans. Anglican schools admit Muslims and, indeed, everyone. They do an amazing job in their communities. Why should we introduce admissions procedures when the schools themselves are doing the job all right? The myth that spreads that faith schools are little ghettos is quite wrong in relation to my faith—I cannot speak about other faiths, but I can speak about Roman Catholics and Anglicans. It is irrelevant for us to have provisions imposed on us.

Lord Lucas: I had better pick up on my noble friend's comments. Obviously, it is right that one cannot really have a Catholic school unless it admits Catholics preferentially. The same applies to an Anglican school—it must be there for its community. The difficulty arises when there are insufficient schools of a particular denomination to satisfy demand, which means that they become purely one-religion schools and exclude those who would like that kind of education but do not happen to be sufficiently committed—some parents must produce a five-year history of having attended church every Sunday, which can be difficult. I want that log jam to be broken and there to be more schools of whichever kind of religion is wanted.
	I refer to something else that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. I do not mean to characterise Oldham in any particular way but choose it as an example merely because it has been in the news. In Oldham an Anglican school exists as a refuge for people who can exit from the areas in which they would naturally go to school by saying, "I am an Anglican", leaving behind a school that becomes, in effect, a Muslim school. That is a destructive process.
	If 100 per cent of the pupils admitted by a school are of the same religion, the school will be a force for social and racial division. Church schools should not do that; it is not part of the deal with the state. There is a responsibility to the community, and the school should recognise it. I am merely going by newspaper reports of what the head teachers of those schools in Oldham said. I find that difficult to reconcile with my view of the educational contract between state and Church.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I did not wish to intervene again, but I get excited when we come to matters affecting Lancashire. It is grossly unfair to put Oldham's problems down to what is said to have happened in two Anglican high schools. If we considered schooling in Oldham across the piece, we would find problems. We must bear in mind what the governors of those schools face.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, cannot have it both ways, in one sense. If, as he wants, the schools were open to a wider community, the chances are that they would not be attended just by people of a particular faith who were prepared to go to church for five years. I must say that I have never heard of anyone having to go for five years, but, if there are such cases, I say, "Good luck to them". I have a lot of sympathy with that idea, but that is another story. If the noble Lord wishes to take that line, he must also consider the logic the other way. Burnley is the one town in the diocese of Blackburn that has no Anglican high school. I could turn the noble Lord's logic on its head and say that, if there had been such a school, we might not have had riots in Burnley.
	If we start into such a debate, we will get into dangerous water. It worries me that we do not apply the same kind of criteria to the community schools, even though we know that the wealthy will buy houses in an area so that their children will be admitted. At one stage, my wife was head teacher of a wholly Muslim school. I should say "Asian heritage", but all the pupils were Muslim. It was a county school, not a Church school. Not a single member of the indigenous Dewsbury community applied for a place in that school. Earlier in her career, she worked in a prestigious school in Sunderland. People would ring up from Australia and goodness-knows-where to ask whether there was a place at the school, so that they would know where to buy their house.
	We must be careful about arguments about social exclusion. Sometimes, Church schools are made to bear more of the blame for the disturbances, which we all regret, than they should. One of the problems in east Lancashire is that race and religion go together; that is the way it is. In the metropolitan areas, where there are black Christians, there are Church schools—some not five miles from here—that are well racially integrated. In most schools, especially the primary schools, there is the kind of religious mix that the noble Lord seeks.
	I discovered today that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is probably a friend, but I get tired of the constant repetition and refrain about schools in east Lancashire and, indeed, in Bradford, where there have been Anglican high schools only for the past year. Those schools can hardly be held responsible for creating the segregation in that community.

Baroness Blatch: I shall speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said about faith schools. As long as we have faith schools, their primary objective will be to give a place to anybody of the faith who wishes to have it and is committed to that kind of education. The Minister has already said that.
	I agree with the constructive point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Where there is demand for a certain kind of ethos and education—something that we should welcome—we should try to expand the number of such schools available. It would be possible to be really innovative and set up a school run by Christians, Jews or Muslims and take all comers, if the original faith community is satisfied with the number of places at the school.
	I have no problem with a school becoming all-Anglican, all-Catholic or all-Muslim if that is the demand. However, I have real problems about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The moment one goes down the road of social engineering one finds all kinds of difficulties. I accept the right reverend Prelate's comment that those schools are not responsible for the troubles we have seen either in Ireland, which is an extreme example of community problems, or in Oldham or Burnley. In fact, those schools are probably havens in areas where young people are learning fundamentally how to live with one another and respect cultural differences.
	However, a point that has not been made in the course of this relatively long debate relates to safeguards for city technology colleges, the city colleges of technology and the arts and the city academies. I have a close knowledge of city technology colleges and I know that city colleges of technology and the arts and the city academies, which have emulated the way in which CTCs were set up, have a detailed legislative underpinning of their admissions procedures. They are wholly subscribed in great detail and are probably the most scientific comprehensive schools in the country. They have to take from across the ability range in certain percentages. They have to interview and have a sophisticated system in order to create the spread. The idea of putting those schools into the melting pot with all other schools appears to be a contradiction. There would have to be a substantial reordering of the legislative statutes in order to accommodate that. I can see no point in them being part of the melting-pot approach to finding places in schools.
	I return to an earlier debate about our faith schools. I believe that the Minister admitted that there is only a relatively small problem in that some schools deliberately keep places vacant in the hope that a number of children of the faith will come along and fill them. She hinted that it was mainly in Catholic schools. Current negotiations are amicable and a solution appears to be forthcoming. That is to be welcomed.
	All I know of Church of England Schools and of King David and other Jewish schools is that when there are vacancies they are open and welcoming to children from the local area. I do not see that as being a problem and I would prefer to leave the matter there. I believe that the faith community should be wholly satisfied and that the local community should have open access to any vacancies which arise. However, where the demand is greater than that, we should go down the road suggested by my noble friend Lord Lucas and consider the possibility of setting up yet more faith schools to satisfy the need.

The Earl of Listowel: I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 175 under which admission forums would be established only,
	"if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in its area".
	I recognise the truth of the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Alton about subsidiarity and the importance of self-determination for schools. Perhaps that point is answered by the fact that the admissions forums will have only an advisory role. I am concerned about the situation in which there appears a pocket of deprivation within an area. The majority of schools might be happy with the admission arrangements and only one or two schools might feel unhappy with them. I would like to seek clarity about that matter. Is it a reason why there should be an obligation on forming school forums?

Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may briefly reply to the right reverend Prelate. No, Church schools are not the problem but they could be an important part of the solution.

Lord Brennan: Perhaps I may ask the Committee's forgiveness for joining the debate 46 minutes after it started in order to make three short points. First, the debate has illustrated the sensitivity of the faith school issue. It requires any legislative clause or amendment which seeks to affect such institutions to be phrased with absolute clarity; to be produced in a way that provides for open debate about the fundamental issues; and not to be achieved, albeit with a notable objective of compromise, by an amendment such as this. I think that our debate has illustrated that fact. When this question comes up, the best debate will be the product of the intellectual rigour with which we look to the question of faith schools.
	Secondly, this vehicle for seeking to assimilate, in so far as it can be assimilated, the faith school system into the national schools system is simply not successful. As an advocate of faith schools, I find it unacceptable that an advisory body which is the product of secondary legislation should be the vehicle by which the community determines how faith schools should best function in terms of admissions. That is a very poor route in the objective of the noble cause of the best education for the many.
	Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will forgive me if I utter a note of incredulity; we have served on several committees together. The idea that faith schools should adopt the role of soaking up the unsatisfied educational needs of a nation by ever increasing their size and numbers because people want to send their children to them is a marvellous compliment to those schools; but the ingenuity of the idea should not relieve us of our common sense. There is a limit to what religions can provide and what faith schools can sustain. The primary obligation for education in this country was, is, and will be, with the state, either directly or by subventions to faith schools.
	I admire the diplomacy and energy of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, but I regret that this particular amendment is not the right vehicle for the occasion which surely will come when we properly debate the role of faith schools in our education system.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall declare briefly my ecumenical interests. My great-grandfather was an Irish-Anglican cleric who became a Unitarian minister. My maternal grandfather was a canon in the Church of Wales. His son, my uncle, was a dean in the Church of England. His sister, my aunt, began as a Protestant missionary in Uganda, but ended up as a Carmelite nun in a closed order in Birkenhead via being Mother Superior of an order in Dundalk. My late noble kinsman was much involved in the Church of England preparations for the 1944 Act. Those are modest qualifications, but they are at least ecumenical.
	I hesitate to be a squeaking wheel in terms of reference to a debate which occurred earlier in the other place, but it is quite useful as a text in following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with whose fundamental sentiments I agree profoundly.
	In another place Clause 44 was discussed, but Mr Phil Willis, the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party—whom I greatly like—appeared to the rest of the Committee to be speaking to an amendment on Clause 45. He said: "Yes, I agree with that, but I wanted to make sure that the Government were going to raise this issue". The chairman said that the Committee would discuss the amendment concerned, Amendment No. 233, and asked the Minister, Mr Timms, whether he agreed.
	The following sentence is difficult to parse. Mr Timms said:
	"Yes, I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in Government amendments, and it will be debated".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 10.1.02; col. 333.]
	I have difficulty in following that particular sentence, but it gave the impression that the matter was going to be settled on Clause 45 and in Amendment No. 233.
	It will come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that Clause 45 was never reached in the Commons and so the anticipation of the Liberal Democrat spokesman was wholly foiled, despite the very long speech which he made in Committee on Clause 44. Therefore, it seems of extreme importance that the Committee reaches sensible, broadly based and wise conclusions because what we discuss will matter to many people across the country hereafter, as I implied in an earlier remark.
	I shall not make a long speech. As a loyal son of the established Church, I shall repeat the speech made in the 18th century by a man who, after Edmund Burke sat down, rose briefly and said, "Ditto to Mr Burke" and sat down. My Mr Burke is my noble friend Lord Pilkington and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I subscribe to the general sentiments they expressed.
	I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in saying that because this issue is of such importance we have to reach wise and sensible conclusions in the same way as conclusions were reached in 1944. If we do not do so, we shall be in trouble. I am certain that we shall return to this subject.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should like to make two points. First, as drafted the clause emphasises that the admissions forums cover all maintained schools. Although they are their own admissions authority, in the primary legislation the admission forum is required to give advice to the voluntary aided schools which can then decide whether they wish to take the advice. In putting forward the amendment, we were well aware of that. The idea was that the admissions forum could be in a position to offer advice.
	Secondly, the city technology colleges and academies are not part of the maintained sector in that sense. Therefore, they are not included on the face of the Bill within the remit of the admissions forum. Amendment No. 176 proposed that the city colleges be included within that remit. For the same reasons that I believe that there is a case for the Church schools to be included within the remit, there is a strong reason for including the city technology colleges.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I promised that I would not say this tonight because I have said it endlessly but it has been an interesting debate. Noble Lords have spoken with great passion.
	On Amendment No. 175, our proposal for mandatory admission forums is in the Bill in order to make the school admissions process better for even more parents and children. We believe that every area will benefit from having a forum. We have seen from our consultation in England that 78 per cent of respondents agreed to some extent with our suggestions for mandatory forums. Many people have told us that forums would have a greater impact if every area had to have one and admission authorities were required to have regard to their advice.
	Let me outline the important role that these forums will have. They will advise all admission authorities in their area, including the LEA, on admission issues as well as considering how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interest of local parents and children. They will reach local agreement on new or controversial issues and broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable and challenging children and those who arrive in an area outside the normal admission round have fair access to local schools. We expect the core membership of admission forums to include representatives from headteachers and governors of foundation, community and voluntary maintained schools in the local education authority area.
	We believe that these mandatory forums will improve the admissions process by ensuring that there is real discussion and consensus between the key admission partners in an LEA area. Our view is that this is a matter of real importance and should no longer be voluntary.
	I turn to Amendment No. 176. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out that the provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 relating to school admissions apply only in relation to a "maintained school". As defined by Section 86(4) of that Act, that means a community, a foundation or a voluntary school. City technology colleges, city academies, and academies are independent schools.
	We recognise that certain schools that are not maintained by the local education authority, such as academies, do have a contribution to make to admission forum discussions. Again, our recent consultation showed that 81 per cent of those who responded agreed—at least to some extent—that the proposed membership of admission forums should include any local city technology colleges, and city academies, in the area in question where there are issues regarding secondary schools. We believe that the involvement of CTCs, city academies, and academies in forums will also encourage them to consider the advice given by the forums.
	Through their funding agreements, all academies will be obliged to comply with the requirements of admissions law as it applies to maintained schools. Academies will be required, therefore, through their funding agreements, to take part in statutory admission forums. More generally, we shall expect academies to use the same timetable for admissions as the LEAs in which they are situated, and to take part in co-ordinated schemes, in order to make the applications process as straightforward as possible.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, CTCs are not maintained schools, and, therefore, not subject to the admissions provisions. However, we want to encourage CTCs to participate in forum discussions. We shall, by way of regulations, require forums to invite CTCs to attend meetings. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she has enough information to enable her to withdraw the amendment.
	As for Amendment No. 177, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the membership in terms of "neighbouring" education authorities. Through this clause we intend to make regulations on the constitution of admission forums. It is our intention to specify core membership. We have also suggested that any other group representing an important section of the local community should be represented. As the noble Lord outlined, certain LEAs, especially those with a high proportion of cross-border traffic, may well wish to include representatives from neighbouring local authority areas.
	However, some LEAs have several neighbours, and it would be an unnecessary burden on them if they were required to attend all their neighbours' admission forums, as well as organising their own, especially if discussions did not include cross-border issues. Each LEA has different needs and circumstances. Our desire is to be as flexible as possible, so that we can respond to such needs. Therefore, although we would encourage neighbouring LEAs to take part in admission forum discussions, we believe that it would be inappropriate to require them to do so—in other words, they "may" do so, but we do not wish to require them to do so on the face of the Bill. I hope that my response meets the noble Lord's point, and that he will see fit not to press his amendment.
	As I said earlier, noble Lords have spoken with great passion on Amendment No. 178A, which is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I was extremely impressed with the pedigree of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in this instance. I was also much taken with the desire for people to recognise that schools cannot be held responsible for what has happened in some of our communities. However, we must recognise the importance of the school as part of the sustainable development of our communities, and the need to build on that process.
	The role of admission forums is to take an overview of how well existing and proposed admission arrangements work within the area represented by the forum. We want them to be platforms for discussion to facilitate a joint approach to problem solving and local agreement. However, the forum is not intended to replace the statutory admissions consultation process. We do not believe it is right that authorities should have an additional requirement to consult forums on an issue that is already part of a statutory local consultation and determination process.
	It will not be the purpose of admission forums to change the fundamental character of schools. If an admission authority considers that the advice given by a forum would have that effect, it could reasonably reject that advice. It is for admission authorities to consult on, and determine, their own admission arrangements; and, if they are objected to, to justify them to the Schools Adjudicator.
	It is already possible for the admission authority of a faith school to give priority on the basis of faith adherence for such numbers of available places that it may decide upon. If there are sufficient applications, some state in their admission arrangements that a specified number will be allocated to a particular faith. Our code of practice on school admissions makes it clear that parents applying for a school place both need and deserve local admission arrangements that are clear and objective, as well as giving every child a fair chance to secure a satisfactory school place.
	The existing admissions framework enables admission authorities, including local education authorities, to object to the independent schools adjudicator if they disagree with any aspect of a school's admission arrangements for any reason. In the case of objections to religious criteria, these are passed on to the Secretary of State for her consideration. As part of their individual considerations of an objection, either the adjudicator or the Secretary of State may, of course, take account of any advice given by an admissions forum. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	My final comment is to my noble friend Lord Jones: there are no other new forums within this Bill.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. We have had a long and fairly exhaustive debate. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 176A:
	Page 30, leave out line 6 and insert—
	"( ) The authority shall make available to the forum information about the views on and experience of admissions policies and practices of disabled children and children with special educational needs and their parents.
	( ) The authority may establish sub-committees of the forum to assist the forum in preparing advice on inclusive admissions policies, or for other purposes."

Lord Rix: Even though we are now approaching the Ten O'clock News, before I speak to the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I should like to thank the Committee for the generous way in which it accepted my enforced absence last Thursday. I should especially like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for moving the amendments in my name and the Government for their generally helpful response.
	In speaking to Amendment No. 176A, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 182 and Amendment No. 198A, which I have had decoupled from its grouping with Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 because the earlier amendments deal with admission arrangements and Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 deal with admission appeals. I should also like to point out that Clause 47 stand part should follow Amendment No. 200, not precede it.
	Collective responsibility for regulating the admissions process makes sense and I do not disagree with the principle behind this innovation. However, we need to clarify the relationship between the new forums and the existing requirement to monitor admissions of pupils with special educational needs and disabled children. It is essential that when schools are working corporately, as well as when they are working separately, they should be helping to develop policies which ensure the best possible appropriate education for these children.
	Admissions forums should support a fair selection process which does not unfairly discriminate against pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. I also expect such a scheme to ensure that one mainstream school in a group—perhaps the school with the less favourable local reputation—does not become the special needs school.
	Amendment No. 176A would guarantee that forums are proactive in ensuring a fair admissions process for these children. It would also allow the authority to form a sub-committee to advise the main forum on special educational needs policies. I am aware that Clause 44(2) of the Bill enables authorities to establish a sub-committee. However, my amendment goes further and suggests a specific use of a sub-committee. I am putting this forward as another option and I look forward to the Minister's response.
	Amendment No. 182 would require local education authorities to publish information from the monitoring of admissions of children with special educational needs. This information should be used to inform the work of admissions forums and the development of any local education authority admissions schemes.
	In speaking to Amendment No. 198A, I am aware that the Special Educational Consortium is concerned that any scheme to co-ordinate admissions in local education authorities might impact disproportionately on disabled children and children with special educational needs. The consortium would therefore want to make sure that parents of pupils with special educational needs and disabled children are consulted about any scheme to co-ordinate admissions. Amendment No. 198A seeks to achieve this and ensures that the voice of the child is also heard, even though it is not possible for the voice of the child to prevail. I would add on the basis of quite a lot of experience that having a learning disability, even a severe learning disability, does not stop a child having views about his or her schooling.
	The Government's thinking behind these innovations is that the forums will make the admissions process work better for vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs. However, there is nothing in the Bill or in the draft policy document which states that. We have heard a number of references to a portmanteau clause to cover this gap in regard to SEN and disability. I am happy to say that today Mencap has submitted a suggested draft clause to fit into the general interpretation of the Bill, the draft going to the department and to the SEC for further comments and advice. Let us hope that it, or something of a like nature, will eventually meet with general approval and appear on the face of the Bill.
	In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what will be the impact of regulations on forum responsibilities for special educational needs policies. As the evening wears on, I shall be more than happy at this stage to accept assurances. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I add my support to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on this issue. Last year, we spent a good deal of time debating the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. The issue of inclusion is very important. We were all agreed at that time on the procedures that should be followed.
	For many children, the process of selecting and attending a new school is a very important one—the more so for those with special educational needs or disabilities. I entirely endorse all three amendments proposed by the noble Lord.

Lord Jones: The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are persuasive. I hope that they will have satisfaction. They certainly have a great deal of experience.
	Perhaps I may briefly raise the question: do the Government have confidence in the local education authorities? In one day, Ministers have proposed two forums. Are the LEAs, therefore, falling down in their tasks? Are the LEAs hostile to consultation? Are they deaf to representations from parents and from head teachers? Is it the case that the Government have little regard today for the local education authorities? Do Ministers seek to trim the powers of the LEAs? Are the proposed forums government devices to make good the defects of LEAs? I hope that is not the Government's approach. However, given that two forums have been proposed, and given the topicality of the future of LEAs, the Minister may be able to set out the Government's thinking.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am in no way qualified to follow the wise counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose experience in these matters is well known throughout this place. However, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in the other place produced a report on children with special educational needs in the context of the Province. On the strength of that experience, I have particular sympathy for Amendment No. 182 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
	The Minister may tell us that the amendment is not necessary and that such an obligation already exists. But if he does not, I am strongly in support of the noble Lord in making sure that we get that particular detail on the record.

Lord Brennan: The purpose of Amendment No. 176A is to assist admission forums to ensure that disabled children and those with special educational needs are properly catered for. On a careful reading of Clause 44, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the amendment is not necessary, because the Government, local education authorities and admission forums should take those matters into account in any event.
	Be that as it may, whether the amendment is needed or not, local communities will regard admission forums as having a special advisory responsibility in what one might call an emotional and sensitive area. I have two matters to raise. The first is the public perception of admission forums. If the idea goes about that this is the system by which the community can express its desires on admission policies in local schools, the community will expect results. If the idea is that disabled children and those with special educational needs will be carefully considered within such a system, their parents and families will expect the forum to be their advocate. It is therefore essential that the forums have credibility and that advice in this very important area is not ignored or swept aside by a local education authority simply on economic resources arguments. That would destroy the beneficial objective of the forums.
	Secondly, and equally importantly, my noble friend the Minister must make it abundantly clear to the Committee that the system of admission forums is not intended to detract from or to replace the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities to cater for these children in need. It is their responsibility. It is not the responsibility of an advisory body, whose function is to bring local needs in that area to the attention of the local education authority.
	Why is that important? It is not only for humanitarian reasons, but also for legal reasons. It would be a shocking result if the local community got the idea that if an admission forum had agreed with a proposal then it was going to happen, and then it did not. The community would wonder what was the function of the forum, what was the division of responsibility between it and the local education authority and how they could remedy what they thought to be a wrong.
	I want to reassure the Committee that there is a small group solicitors and barristers who concentrate on educational cases purely out of dedication and at little or no profit to themselves. In the past 10 or 15 years, they have ensured two things legally. First, local education authorities are required to be consistent in the way they apply the law for the general benefit of children. Secondly, by bringing test cases they can achieve results that apply to the many. I do not want a state of affairs in which families and the lawyers who help them have no idea whether they should be seeking recourse from the admission forum, the local education authority or both—or what? That would be a very unhappy result. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure, as I think she said a moment ago, that LEAs are still required to observe statutory admission criteria and cannot foist their responsibilities on to the forums.
	I adopt the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whether necessary or not, but bearing in mind the cautions that I have just expressed.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I strongly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Rix said in moving his amendment about the requirement that should be placed on schools and local education authorities to meet the needs of parents who have children with special needs. I worked in that sector for five years some years ago and I share my noble friend's concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, no one in the House has more experience in these matters. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for raising the issue.
	I have considerable concerns, however, about the possibility of creating talking shops. I do not believe that the forums will be able to deliver the objectives that my noble friend Lord Rix has described so eloquently. The real danger is that we shall only raise people's aspirations and hopes. They will go to a forum thinking that it can deliver their requirements, but will be disappointed when they find that that is not true. That will bring local democracy into further disrepute. Some local education authorities have education committees which address issues such as special needs education. Like me, other noble Lords may have served on such committees. The committees have proper appeals mechanisms that allow parents to make their representations, and include real local councillors with real local political clout who can put right some of these problems.
	As we discussed in an earlier group of amendments, it is possible that the forums could be used for mischief making if someone has a particular axe to grind. As I said, I fear that they could simply become talking shops. The more we discuss the issue, the more I am taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the lack of debate about these issues in another place. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had that in mind when she spoke earlier. We have not yet really answered the questions of principle about whether these forums are necessary. That issue should have been debated extensively in another place. I hope that, between now and Report, we shall reflect on whether they are needed at all.

Baroness Blatch: One of the issues raised by the amendments in this group is the degree to which parents of children with special educational needs are properly satisfied by admission arrangements and appropriate provision. This is "Autism Awareness Year", and only yesterday evening, as noble Lords may have seen, the "Newsnight" programme had a report that included the views of an organisation representing children with autism. The organisation emphasised the number of children who are not diagnosed sufficiently early or have missing diagnoses, so that provision for them is made too late in their educational career or, more sadly, not at all.
	I share the concerns just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. There is a danger that the creation of forums will simply raise expectations. The forums have no clout; they have no more than advisory powers. Consequently they could be no more than talking shops. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is right that the local education authority has the legal obligation to make provision for school access for young people. We should not support or underwrite anything that would inhibit the local authority from meeting its legal obligation.
	From his record in the House, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is territorial about the way in which this end is achieved. The important thing is that it is achieved. We want to ensure, first, that nothing in this Bill will inhibit proper provision for children with special educational needs. Secondly, we want to ensure that, as far as possible, provision for children with special needs is appropriate to their educational needs.
	I believe that there was a body called—I cannot recall its precise name; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, can remind me—the informal resolution procedure procedural body. It addressed issues such as appropriate admissions for children with special educational needs and resolved disputes before they became candidates for the tribunal system, thereby keeping them out of court. It would be very helpful, not for education forums but for local authorities, to have an annual appraisal within local education areas to detail where gaps exist, the degree to which proper provision is being made for children with special educational needs, and the degree to which those gaps are not being filled. I do not mind how that is achieved. However, there needs to be a body to submit a systematic annual report to the body that has legal responsibility—that is, the local authority—and to codify the degree to which special educational needs have been met. It could also report the extent to which that is due to wrongful admissions. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wants to achieve, but I am not absolutely certain that it is achieved by the amendment.

Lord Rix: I fully understand that admission forums could well become talking shops; all I am interested to ensure is that if they do become talking shops, they talk sense.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in this truly enlightening debate. I wish to begin by emphasising one or two cardinal principles behind our thinking. There is nothing in the proposals with regard to the forum that in any way, shape or form detracts from the provisions which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, reminded us, we worked upon during the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill which became an Act last year. I give the fundamental reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that there is no proposal with regard to the forum which in any way invalidates or reduces the significance and salience of that legislation in terms of advancing the needs of children with special educational needs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Brennan expressed anxieties about whether representations to the forum on individual cases would be met with the same effective response as that given by the relevant legal authority which, as my noble friend Lord Brennan reminded us, is the local authority. I emphasise that the forums are not the places to discuss individual grievances. It is not expected that parents will lobby forums on behalf of individual grievances. Forums are not extensions of the appeal machinery; they are areas in which policies with regard to admissions in general are discussed and evaluated. Forums are consultative bodies. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend Lord Jones that it is not a question of the Government losing confidence in local authorities but rather of enhancing the services that local authorities offer by creating a consultative framework within which these matters can be discussed. Local authorities will thus be able to reach more intelligent, effective and better informed judgments on the basis of the work that the forums do.
	Against that general background I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we would expect admission authorities to make available relevant information to the forum for all groups of children and parents, not just those of disabled children and children with special educational needs. I repeat my assurance that there is no way in which parents of children with special educational needs will be disadvantaged by the proposals.
	Children who have statements of special educational needs naming a particular school have their interests fully protected already and we have made it clear in statutory guidance that admission authorities must treat children with special educational needs who do not have statements and disabled children as fairly as others and may not refuse admission because they consider that they are unable to cater for special needs.
	Admission forums will consider how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of all local parents and children. They will broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable children, including children with special educational needs who do not have statements and disabled children, have fair access to local schools. All admission authorities in an LEA's area will be required to have regard to any advice given by the forum when determining their admission arrangements.
	We intend to make clear in regulations that the core membership of admission forums should include the parent representatives elected by all the parent governors of the LEA in question. Parents of disabled and SEN children, like other parents, will be able to channel views through them to the admission forum.
	I remind Members of the Committee that from September of this year—this consolidates the point that I made earlier—admission authorities will have to comply with Sections 28A, 28B and 28C of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. They clearly place legal duties on admission authorities not to treat disabled pupils less favourably than their non-disabled peers without justification and to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled pupils.
	I can also give a clear assurance that admission authorities will be able to establish sub-committees of the forum, should they wish to do so. That would not be appropriate for all areas—smaller authorities may not find it necessary. We therefore considered that the decision to establish a sub-committee, and for what purpose, should be wholly at the discretion of the authority. If LEAs consider it appropriate to establish a sub-committee to assist the forum in preparing advice, they already have the discretion to do that.
	I turn to Amendment No. 182, which is not appropriately placed in relation to this clause, which deals with admission forums. I reassure Members of the Committee that the admissions framework that we have put in place ensures that all admission authorities in an area do not place prospective pupils who are disabled or have SEN at any disadvantage. I reiterate the fact that nothing in the Bill changes that. As I have already said, the Disability Discrimination Act and the special educational needs legislation will apply to access to education for the first time.
	On Amendment No. 198A, the aim of co-ordinating admissions is simply to avoid the situation in which multiple applications by parents can lead to some parents receiving more than one offer of a school place for their children while others get none. Co-ordinated schemes will not change schools admissions criteria; they will simply provide general ground-rules for deciding which place an LEA should offer to any given parent if their child is potentially eligible for more than one school. A typical ground-rule, but not the only possible one, would be that the parents should be offered the place at whichever school they ranked the higher. Co-ordinated arrangements will not in any way change the position for children who have statements of SEN naming a particular school. Those children must be admitted to the named school, regardless of the school's general admission arrangements or criteria. Indeed, from 2003, when a child with a statement transfers between phases of schooling—for example, from primary to secondary—the Education (Special Education Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations require the LEA to amend the statement and to name the school that the child will be attending by 15th February in the year of transfer. LEAs will have to take those allocations as a fait accompli when allocating the remaining places under any co-ordinated admissions schemes for their area.
	I recognise the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her constructive idea about how to refine the way in which we deal with some of the problems associated with children with SEN and how a local authority can handle that with the greatest sensitivity and effectiveness. I shall take that issue away, consider it further and come back with further responses. I do not have the capacity to respond to it in detail at this point. It is an extremely useful suggestion, which I know is prompted by the noble Baroness's concern about those children, which I share.
	I hope that I have assured noble Lords that all of the issues that have been raised—they are tremendously important issues—indicate that the Government are avoiding the division between the talking shop, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, worried about, and the committee that wiped out the significance of local authorities in Britain to which my noble friend Lord Jones referred. All that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is that he will recall that one of the founding fathers of conservatism said that our constitution is balanced upon a nice equipoise; so is the concept of the forum.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Perhaps the Minister will allow a comment on what he has said. He did not treat Amendment No. 182, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on its merits; he simply told us that it was not the right amendment for this particular part of the Bill. He provided reassurance about other aspects of the law, and that of course was comforting. But can he tell the Committee whether he believes that Amendment No. 182 could sensibly be moved to another part of the Bill?

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is for the noble Lord to see whether he can find another part of the Bill where the amendment would be more appropriately placed. Clearly it does not fit into this framework. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is always motivated by the concerns of the group of children and their parents on behalf of whom he speaks. We shall of course consider an amendment in detail when it is placed more appropriately in the Bill.

Lord Rix: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken so cogently and splendidly in support of, or at least have commented upon, the amendment which I have just moved. I am most grateful to them all. I am grateful, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for bringing up the question of my Amendment No. 182. I shall, of course, go away and seek advice from Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium as to a more suitable place for the amendment to be placed in the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister could not find the necessary place in his brief. But no doubt he will write to me on the matter, if he is so minded, in the next day or two.
	I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her suggestion, which has been taken up by the Minister. I am sure that it will prove very fruitful in future discussions on special educational needs and disability.
	I am delighted to have received so many assurances. Again, in consultation with Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium, I shall see whether I need to return to these amendments in some form or another at the next stage of the Bill. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 178:
	Page 30, line 15, at end insert "but need not accept that advice".

Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can be brief in speaking to this amendment. It refers to LEA and admission authorities which, I understand, under the law will have to have regard to any relevant advice given to them by the admission forum. My understanding of the phrase "having regard to" is that it gives statutory underpinning to any advice that is given by the admission forum to the LEA and the admission authorities. In principle, I have no argument with that. My amendment states,
	"but need not accept that advice".
	I am almost certain that, if I were in the Minister's shoes, I would say, "No, this is not going on the face of the Bill". I shall understand if that is the answer.
	However, I believe that it is important to have on the record that all that is being proffered is advice. Of course, such advice could be challenged in any tribunal and it would be important for the admission authority and/or the LEA to prove in a court of law that, in coming to whatever decision or conclusion it reached, en passant it had had proper regard to the advice that it was given. But it would not necessarily in law bind the LEA or the admission authority to accept that advice. I should be grateful to have confirmation of that on the record. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I rise briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said. I am reminded of the debate about community health councils and the reasons that Parliament decided that community health councils had outlived their usefulness. One reason that the Government decided that they could do without CHCs was that they had become talking shops. They said that they were ineffective in championing the cause of patients and users of the health service. It seems strange to me that in the context of this other legislation we are setting up something that is not dissimilar. I have a fear that they will have a limited life expectancy. When people discover that the real decisions are still to be made by local councillors, they will properly go to their local councillors who will represent their interests to the local education authority.
	Although I am all in favour of people being involved wherever possible on the ground—participation and involvement is crucially important—I return to the point about the devaluation of that process if we simply create talking shops. On the wall of my study at home I have a poster that says, "God so loved the world that he did not send a committee". Although I realise that committees are an essential part of our civic life and of our political existence, nevertheless we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in committees. Sometimes we know that they can be extremely futile.
	I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter before Report stage. If all that is to be given on many of these issues is advice, and if people know that the real power and the real decisions will be taken elsewhere in local authorities, they will be reluctant to serve on such bodies. It is already difficult to find people to serve as school governors and in local authorities where they feel that their powers have been emasculated, so why on earth should anyone want to serve on one of these advisory forums?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On Amendment No. 178, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was correct in her assumption that had she been standing here she would not want to put that particular phrase on the face of the Bill. The Bill does not require admission authorities to accept any advice that the admission forums may agree to give. Quite deliberately, the clause says that such bodies should have regard to the advice, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. Those words are carefully chosen so as to leave those who receive advice some discretion. They do not have to follow the advice without question, but we would normally expect them to do so unless there were a good reason not to do so.
	Perhaps I can give an example. If an admission forum made a recommendation at odds with the fundamental character of a school, such as that a single sex school should become co-educational or that a grammar school should cease to be selective, the admission authority could reasonably reject that advice after giving it due consideration. In that sense, the current drafting already provides that an admissions authority need not accept advice. I am happy to make that clear. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I hesitate to sound excited about admission forums because I remember what happened when I said that I was excited about schools forums, but I genuinely am excited about them. That is partly because as a parent I have been on the receiving end of one that has worked well. They are not meant to be part of a large bureaucracy and I take the noble Lord's point about committees.
	We are thinking about the meetings taking place twice a year. They will consider how the arrangements are working; the impact on children, on parents, on vulnerable children, on children with special educational needs and on those who arrive from outside the area; and how best our most vulnerable and challenging children can be shared, in the best sense of that word, between the different schools so that they come together. The task will not be onerous but the forums are meant to do a real job. The experience of parents on the receiving end of those that are already in place and working well is a happy and positive one. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Of course, I shall withdraw the amendment. I take with a slight pinch of salt what the noble Baroness has said about this being a committee that will have a light touch and meet only occasionally. Subsection (3) states:
	"Regulations may make provision—
	(a) as to the constitution, meetings and proceedings of an admission forum and of any such sub-committee,
	(b) as to the manner in which advice is to be given by a forum, and
	(c) as to the establishment by local education authorities of joint admission forums".
	Of course, it will have sub-committees. So I am not absolutely certain that they will be anything like that. I believe that we shall see here the establishment of something that will be a talking shop. No doubt, two or three years down the line we shall see the monster that has been created. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 180:
	Page 30, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) Admission Forums shall seek the views of carers of children in public care and make these known to the admission authorities."

The Earl of Listowel: In moving Amendment No. 180, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 181. The purpose of these two probing amendments is to ensure that children in public care are gaining fair access to the better performing schools. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to two similar amendments. Without wishing to make a case of special pleading, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that these children do not have parents to act as advocates for them. In that sense they are unique.
	Currently those children are not gaining fair access to the better performing schools. Schools preoccupied with league table performance are averse to accepting needy children. There is a concern that many schools are prejudiced against children in public care. Such children are often still perceived as "bad", when in fact they are "needy".
	Children are taken into public care throughout the school year. The better performing schools are unlikely to have places available mid-year. Better performing schools are of particular benefit to looked-after children. An ordered school environment helps to remedy the experience many of these children have had of a chaotic family environment and often an unsettled experience in public care. Good schools can help remedy the lack of clear boundaries the child has experienced, as well as put right the child's interrupted schooling.
	I thank the Minister for the draft regulations. I welcome the inclusion, among the topics for forum deliberations, of arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable and challenging children are fairly shared. I ask for clarification: does the reference to "parents" also apply to carers of looked-after children?
	Can the Minister assure the Committee that her measures are sufficiently robust? There has been a problem in engaging the interest of carers of looked-after children in the education of their charges. Can the Minister assure the Committee that forums will seek out, welcome and encourage the views of such carers? Can she assure the Committee that forums will give active consideration to the inclusion of carers or care agencies among their membership? What safeguards are there to ensure that admissions forums seek the views of carers of children in public care and reflect the needs of those children in any decisions they make on admissions?
	Given the impact of admission arrangements on school improvements and school performance, what role does Ofsted play in reporting on the fair distribution of vulnerable and/or challenging children between local schools? I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I rise briefly to support the amendments in principle and also to elaborate a little on why the views of carers in particular need to be given more prominence.
	If we look at the performance of children in care, we see huge disparities in terms of their achievements. It is critical that we are more pro-active, both in involving carers themselves, who are notoriously reluctant to take part in the formal arrangements that are often made for parents, but also to make it as easy as possible for their views and experiences to be collected.
	In the joint guidance for children in public care published 18 months ago, which followed the QPO initiative, 15 different reasons were identified as to why children were failing to thrive in schools. They included a lack of information being available—there is obviously a crucial problem here—as well as a low value being put on education traditionally within the care services. Things have improved a great deal.
	I welcome the admission forums as a positive step and as a way of introducing transparency and confidence to parents. I do not share the fears of Members opposite that they will simply be a talking shop. We have had nothing which can inform parents as to why admissions are determined the way they are and what arrangements there are for fairness and equality. They are absolutely justifiable.
	Four years ago hardly any local authority in the country knew where its children in public care were. I was astonished by that. Two years ago only half of all local authorities knew what those children were achieving in schools. There is a "Bermuda Triangle" regarding information about children in public care. If the admission forums have the power to invite information and potential representation—I do not know whether they would have that power—it could be positive. We should take the opportunity that the Bill presents to encourage carers to be involved and schools and public authorities to know what is happening to children in public care.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I entirely support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his intention to protect the interests of children in public care. I agree with him that these are some of our most vulnerable children. Members of the Committee will be aware that most children are in care because they have been subjected to neglect or abuse. Therefore, they are extremely vulnerable and need to be protected.
	As my noble friend Lady Andrews has said, it is only in recent times that we have enabled ourselves to get to grips with the issues facing these children. We are beginning to target them as a group to ensure that they achieve an education and that they are able to take their place in society with the best possible support.
	Therefore, we consider it right that responsibility for ensuring that admission arrangements work for all children should rest with the admission forums for that particular area. One of their responsibilities will be to broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable children, including those in public care, have fair access to local schools. All admission authorities will be required to have regard to any advice given by the forum.
	One of the key functions of the admission forums will be to advise on local protocols to aid the swift placement of vulnerable children. We shall shortly be consulting on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility to consider the issues relating to the issue of children in public care, and how to ensure that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs. Subject to parliamentary approval we also propose to give extra guidance on suitable protocols in the admissions code.
	In addition, we propose through regulations to introduce a requirement that social services are included as a member of admissions forums and to explain in the admission code that they should be in attendance for consideration of all aspects relating to vulnerable children and in-year admissions.
	Finally, we also propose to consult on the possibility of recommending as good practice that all admission authorities give top priority on their over-subscription criteria and on any waiting lists to children in public care.
	I am well aware of the issues surrounding the way that we want Ofsted to be involved in this matter. It is looking at the role of local education authorities which have the remit to ensure that these children are cared for in terms of education. The good news is that the picture is beginning to look more positive. We have a long way to go, but it is looking increasingly positive. I am a member of a group chaired by my honourable friend Jacqui Smith from the Department of Health. That group is specifically looking at support for children in care. I shall be very pleased to pass on the noble Earl's comments about the role of Ofsted and his general views, if that would help. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her very helpful and full reply to my concerns. In particular, I thank her for the welcome news about the inclusion of social services on the admission forums and about the top priority which is to be given to children in public care. I shall reflect on what she has said and consider what further steps need to be taken at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 183:
	After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"PARENTAL PREFERENCES
	(1) Section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (parental preference) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3) after paragraph (c) there is inserted "; or
	(d) if compliance with the preference would result in an unsustainable balance between boarding places and day places at a maintained boarding school.""

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 183 addresses a small but significant issue, particularly for those who represent service interests. State boarding schools cater for some 700 families of servicemen and women. Essentially, the difficulty they face is an inability to ring-fence a certain number of places for boarders. That places the financial viability of the schools at risk. If during the course of a year a number of pupils decide to switch from boarding to day places, the boarding house can become uneconomic to maintain.
	Perhaps I may set out the problem. Let us take a school with an admission number of, say, 120. Over the five years—years seven to 11—the school may therefore expect to have five times 120, that is 600, pupils. Let us suppose that 300 boarders and 300 day pupils were the optimum balance based on classroom and boarding accommodation. That would appear to imply 60 day pupils and 60 boarders per year, but that is incorrect. The pattern for demand for boarding places differs from that for day places. Schools often want to take in a smaller total number in year seven and subsequently grow by taking boarders into later years, following the actual numbers that apply. They may want to take in only, say, 40 boarders in year seven, but to take in extra boarders in subsequent years in response to demand—with often particularly strong demand in years nine and 10.
	Furthermore, boarders often apply much later in the academic year than do day students, as the need for a boarding place is not always predictable well in advance because of an unexpected posting overseas, a change of job or even a change in family circumstances. Under current legislation, an appeals panel may allow appeals from unsuccessful day applicants and force the school to take in 80 day pupils and 40 boarders. That may prevent or limit the ability of the school subsequently to take in further boarders to fill its boarding capacity, because its classroom capacity is fully taken up. That is to say that, even though pupils could be accommodated for boarding, they could not be taught in the classroom.
	The solution favoured by the Minister—this has been elicited from correspondence—is to have different admission numbers for each year. For example, in year seven, there could be 60 day pupils and 40 boarders, equalling 100 children; in year eight, no extra day pupils and 10 extra boarders; in year nine, no extra day pupils and 12 extra boarders; in year 10, no extra day pupils and 12 extra boarders; and in year 11, no extra children at all. That totals 600 in all.
	There are two real problems with such a solution. The pattern of demand is not sufficiently predictable, and if it varies from the above numbers of boarders, places could still be given to day applicants, as occurs at present. Secondly, there would be nothing to prevent any or all boarders unilaterally switching from boarding to day status. Thus, such a solution can never adequately safeguard a school's ability to provide boarding. The only solution that will adequately protect state boarding schools is for them to be able to ring-fence a certain number of places as boarding only.
	I cannot understand the department's reluctance to do something practical on those lines. I know that it is sympathetic, but it needs to do something to resolve the problem and prevent the possibility of some of those schools going out of business altogether. That would affect only the small number of schools with boarding places and would not create an issue for other schools.
	I understand that this was another clause that was not discussed at all in another place, which is unfortunate. Nevertheless, I also understand that the Liberal Democrats were sympathetic to the case made and I look forward to their support for the amendment tonight. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to say briefly that yes, we entirely support the amendment. In fact, we tabled an alternative amendment to achieve the same thing. It is an important issue for that small number of schools that are state boarding schools as well as day schools. The problem is that because they cannot ring-fence boarding places under existing legislation, there is nothing to prevent parents from accepting a boarding place and then unilaterally declaring that they want it to be taken up as a day place.
	For example, in one school last year, an admissions appeals panel allowed 13 successful appeals from day applicants to fill up the boarding places. That is not a major problem, but it is a problem. A small number of schools offer boarding places as well. They provide a useful service to service families, families of people who go abroad unexpectedly, families that have suffered bereavements and families in which there have been separations and divorces. There are all kinds of issues. A boarding place can be a useful thing, and those schools serve a useful purpose. We hope that the Government can come up with a solution to that little problem.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, my honourable friend the Minister of State has met representatives of the state boarding schools. We understand their difficulties and sympathise with them.
	I shall give the short answer this evening, not the long answer. I hope that it will be of some help to noble Lords. An amendment similar to Amendment No. 185 holds out some promise of a solution because it would make things clear for parents. That approach may not commend itself to all maintained boarding schools because it is not particularly flexible. They would need to publish separate admissions numbers for boarding and day pupils for every year group in which they normally admit pupils and stick to those numbers. I can see the potential value for some schools.
	I hope that, on the basis that we will come back on Report with our own proposals to address the problem, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I understand that the hour dictated that we should have a short answer, but it was unsatisfactory.
	The Minister knows that the people who represent boarding schools have been offered the proposition that they publish admissions numbers for each year. However, running the schools is an unpredictable business. Economic viability is important to them. I would like to think that the Minister could persuade the department to accept—even on a pilot scheme basis—that the schools should be run in the way that they themselves propose. If that caused any unfairness or disruption elsewhere in the system, it could be reversed.
	The proposition offered to the Boarding Schools' Association by the Minister's colleagues in another place is not satisfactory. No doubt, we will return to the matter. I hope that, in the meantime, the Minister will reflect on the case that has been put. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 45 [Admission numbers]:
	[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 186 to 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: I would appreciate a short discussion of what Clause 45 is intended to change about the current arrangements. I have found it reasonably impenetrable and would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall certainly try. Essentially, we want to streamline the local decision-making process and reduce the burden on governors, education authorities and others involved.
	The problem that standard numbers were introduced in the 1980s to deal with—schools refusing children places by saying that they were full when they were not—is no longer current. The changes that we introduced in 1998 have made standard number controls redundant. Admission authorities must now consult each other annually on their proposed admission arrangements, including admission numbers. Other admission authorities may object to the schools adjudicator about any aspect of admission arrangements, and admission authorities must follow their published admission arrangements.
	There is significant support for a change. In our recent consultation, 81 per cent of respondents agreed to some extent with our proposals to abolish standard numbers and introduce a new capacity assessment formula. Under the old system, the standard number was the highest number when one considered the school capacity and two numbers based on the numbers in the school on two particular dates of overcrowding. The admission numbers were then set at or above that standard number. Any changes to those numbers required statutory proposals decided by the school organisation committee. It was a lengthy process. Under the new system, schools will simply publish admission numbers, and that will be it. Any other admission authority can object, as can any group of 10 parents. However, the process is straightforward and more effective.
	I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the measure is about reducing the administrative burden on admission authorities and school organisation committees which currently find the process of setting and changing standard numbers onerous and not worth while. Taken together with the provision relating to the publishing of admission numbers, we believe that abolishing standard numbers will reduce that burden while still underpinning the protection for parental preference. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord is able to withdraw his objection.

Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Co-ordination of admission arrangements]:
	[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 191:
	Page 31, line 8, leave out "arrangements" and insert "dates"

Baroness Blatch: The arrangements for admission and the actual admission of pupils are one of the most important functions which any school carries out. Schools which are their own admissions authority should be left as free as possible to make arrangements according to their own admissions criteria—which in any case have to be within the law. As far as possible, the criteria should be educational or academic in line with the major purpose of education.
	The major exception to that concerns dates, because it is not helpful to parents or to schools if there is a range of dates by which parents will know whether or not their child has been accepted. Other aspects of admission should be the domain of the individual admissions authorities. If not, what would be the point of holding admissions authority status? If any school or local education authority makes that particularly onerous, it is likely to suffer by losing pupils and in the event losing popularity.
	Most current admissions criteria are not educational at all; for instance, distance from school, sibling family connections, connection with staff, parental preference and so forth. But academic criteria are more and more ruled out; for example, ability, aptitude, subject preference, interviews and assessment of parental support. Increasingly, that creates problems for far too many schools. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that, like me, the noble Baroness will have seen the distress caused to parents and children as the start of secondary schooling approaches and they have still not received an offer of a place. Other parents meanwhile have received multiple offers and sometimes hold on to them while deciding in their own time which to accept.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would destroy the whole point of Clause 46, which is designed to ensure that admission arrangements in a local education authority area leading to the single offer of a school place are co-ordinated. Merely co-ordinating the dates on which children are admitted to a school would not achieve that.
	We know that there are a few foundation and voluntary-aided schools which were concerned that co-ordinated admission arrangements would in some way reduce their right to decide and apply their own admissions policy and criteria. I can safely say "minority" because in response to our consultation only 22 per cent of voluntary-aided schools disagreed with our proposal.
	I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that any such fears on their part are groundless. Foundation and voluntary-aided schools will continue to receive all applications from parents who wish their children to attend them. They will also continue to apply their own admissions and oversubscription criteria in order to identify which applicants meet their admissions criteria and in what order.
	The main difference a co-ordinated scheme will make to foundation and voluntary-aided schools is that, rather than put forward the offer themselves, they will notify the relevant education authority as to which schools are eligible. Each local education authority will then check in relation to all pupils resident in its area the potential offers to be made. Applying the rules applicable to the co-ordinated scheme in question, the education authority will then decide what offer will be made to those who would otherwise receive multiple offers, or none, and then the local education authority will transmit the single offer of a school place to residents in their area. But where any such offer is for a foundation or a voluntary-aided school place, the education authority will be making that offer on behalf of the school concerned.
	The measure is not only about dates; it is about making sure that when children are applying to schools they receive an appropriate offer. However, that will not interfere with the admission arrangements of any of the schools which control their own admission arrangements. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I shall need to read more carefully the noble Baroness's response. However, I think that my amendment would resolve some of those problems. If the dates by which parents are informed are set by the authority; that is, people are not allowed to stagger information with a whole range of dates in operation—that leads to one school waiting on other schools and parents waiting on offers of places from different schools—and if no decision is made by that date then the offer would go by the board, I think that would be helpful. That would leave the arrangements up to the individual admissions authorities, whether they are the LEA or the individual schools.
	As I have said, I shall read with care the response of the noble Baroness. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 192 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 194:
	Page 31, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) Powers under these regulations shall not be used in such a way as to interfere with the admissions procedures of schools that select pupils by ability or aptitude."

Baroness Blatch: This amendment specifies that any admissions arrangements shall not,
	"interfere with the admissions procedures of schools that select pupils by ability or aptitude".
	I know that there are philosophical objections to the idea of any selection on the basis of ability, but there are schools that, under the current system, are allowed bona fide to select pupils by ability. Of course other schools have now been added to the system that are allowed to select by aptitude.
	The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the powers under these regulations are not used in such a way that they would interfere with the admissions procedures of schools selecting by ability and/or aptitude. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Baroness. Co-ordinated admission arrangements will not affect the current rights of schools which are their own admission authorities to decide their own admission policies, apply them to applicants, identify those who meet their admissions criteria, and in what order. I am happy to make the position clear.
	However, the amendment as drafted would go further than that since it rules out any changes in admissions procedures. We believe that admissions "procedures" are not confined to schools' admission policies, but include all aspects of the processing of admission applications, such as timetables, where application forms are to be sent, how any potential multiple offers are dealt with, transmitting offers and so forth. Inevitably, co-ordinating admission arrangements will mean changes in such processing aspects. The amendment would undermine our objective of assuring that each child is offered a single place.
	I hope, therefore, that with the clear assurance that nothing here would disturb admission policies, the noble Baroness will recognise that her amendment would raise some difficulties and that she will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Blatch: I think I take the point made by the noble Lord about admission procedures in his response. I think that the noble Lord knows what I am asking for by way of this amendment and I think that he has given me the assurance that I seek. I am not quite sure whether the admissions procedures of schools that do select by ability and/or aptitude could be affected by the regulations.
	However, I take on trust what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 195 to 197 not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 198:
	Page 31, line 43, at end insert ", or
	"(c) that in considering admissions to a particular school, no admission authority shall be permitted to take into consideration information relating to parental preferences other than the fact that a parent has expressed a preference for that school, and that no local education authority shall supply an admissions authority with information relating to parental preferences other than that which they are entitled to take into consideration"

Lord Lucas: I beg to move Amendment No. 198. I am concerned that the admissions arrangements should be managed in as parent-friendly a way as possible. At last, for the coming year, we have a situation with UCAS applications whereby universities will not know to which other universities people have applied. There had been a growing practice for some universities automatically to refuse admission to candidates who had applied for Oxford or Cambridge because they wished to see only those candidates who had placed themselves first. I do not think that that was constructive so far as the students were concerned. The process became a competitive system for universities seeking to admit the best candidates and thus was antipathetic to the best interests of students.
	In the private sector, that process is a common means of competition between schools. If the school is in the second rank, an early admissions date is set, scholarships are offered to anyone one considers will get into the schools of the first rank, and the cut-off date for acceptance is set before parents can know whether they have a place at the school they would prefer their child to attend.
	The private sector is the private sector. It will have many ways of making parents' lives difficult under those circumstances. I suppose that all is fair in commercial competition. Life should not be like that in the state sector, but in some places it is. For example, in Kent—I understand why the schools do so—if one wants to get into one of the better non-selective schools, one must put that school first. If one puts a grammar school first, one never gets a chance.
	I hope that under the arrangements described today by the Minister we shall have a system whereby a school which receives an application from a pupil will not know to which other schools that pupil has applied. The school does not need to know. It simply needs to know that the pupil has applied to that school. The school matches the pupil against its admission criteria and decides whether the pupil should be accepted. It is then up to the LEA, or whichever body is co-ordinating the admission arrangements, to say, "Yes, this pupil has received two offers under the scheme. The offer he or she ends up receiving is A or B". That means that everything is as good as it could be for the pupils. There is no prejudice. For a parent who wants to put a non-standard school first, there is none of the terrible competition and difficulties attached, with the possibility of losing any chance of a place in their neighbourhood school.
	Parents who are Catholic may want a chance of a place at a Catholic school 20 miles away which is heavily over-subscribed. If they did not manage to achieve that, they would be content for the child to go to the neighbourhood school. However, because that school is over-subscribed and they put it second, they are off the list. I do not think that that is the way things should be in the state system. The state system should look at an application on its merits as though it were the only application for that child. All the school should know is that a child with these qualifications wants to go to that school; and the school should decide on that basis. The "unders" and "overs" and double offers should be dealt with by the LEA on the basis of its published scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree that my amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I am not sure that I understand. If I do understand, I am not sure how the system will work. How will the Catholic school 20 miles away know why that parent wishes to have a Catholic education for the child? In the case of specialist or faith schools, or schools of a religious character, the admission authority will need to know slightly more than that the parents had a preference for that school.
	The Churches went quickly for the comprehensive principle. I do not think that there is a single voluntary-aided, Church-sponsored grammar school left. I do not comment on whether that is good or bad. If a parent from a deprived area, who was a practising member of whichever Church or faith it happened to be, wanted his child to go to a school in the leafy suburbs which was seen by some to be élitist, how could the governors of that school know that the parents were members of that faith community, or wanted the specialism that might be required, if this amendment is agreed to as worded? I pose that as a question because I may not quite understand what the noble Lord has in mind.

Lord Lucas: I did not intend the words of the amendment to be capable of the construction the right reverend Prelate gives them. A parent expresses a choice by saying, "This first, that second, and that third". A school should not know that it is the third choice. It should be able to have information necessary to satisfy its other criteria: where the parent lives; their religious background; special educational needs; and anything else that is important in deciding to admit the child. The school should not know whether it has been the first, second or third choice, merely that a preference has been expressed for the school.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I really do not believe that the amendment before the Committee actually says that; it just refers to "parental preferences". It could limit the social mix that I know the noble Lord is very keen to see evolve. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw the amendment, and perhaps return later with another composed of different wording.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Indeed, he has presented rather more effectively the case that I intended to make. Perhaps I may begin by expressing a segment of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that LEAs should only share information about the order of preference if it is relevant to the admission arrangements of a school. Regulations and guidance will ensure that that is the case.
	My reservations about the amendment follow directly on the argument advanced by the right reverend Prelate; namely, that schools will need to know more than just the preference. Indeed, they will need to know why a parent has chosen that school in the context, for example, of denominational choice. In passing, I should point out to the noble Lord that I do not believe that school admissions are quite comparable to those that apply to UCCA. However, I accept his arguments about the previous practices that obtained with regard to university entrance. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the changes.
	Once again in this House, when we are discussing admissions to secondary schools, I regret the fact that higher education has been brought into the argument. All too often, our education debates are suffused with information about higher education so as to detract from the point at hand. I shall not, therefore, follow the noble Lord too far down that road. However, I wish to emphasise exactly what the right reverend Prelate indicated.
	I share the objectives of the noble Lord, and recognise exactly what he is trying to achieve. But, unfortunately, the amendment would leave us in a position where appropriate information would not be available to the school authorities seeking to make the decision. That would occur especially where the parent was seeking admission for a child to another smaller school outside the immediate local authority. In such a situation, the sharing of such information would be directly in the interests both of the parent and of the child.
	I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that he has at least had the opportunity to express a sentiment which I significantly share. However, he must realise that the present amendment has certain defects. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I agree that the amendment is badly drafted. As I understand it, the Minister has said that the point that I am trying to make will be covered in guidance. Under those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 198A not moved.]
	Clause 46 agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Admission appeals]:

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: moved Amendment No. 199:
	Page 32, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations shall make provision for a legally qualified person, trained in an understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50), as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (c. 10), to chair any appeal panel where a claim of disability discrimination is being heard as part of an admissions appeal."

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: This amendment would ensure that a "legally qualified person" chairs any appeal panel where a claim of disability discrimination is being heard as part of an admission appeal. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the DDA) to cover education in all aspects of school life—admissions, exclusion, education and associated services. The provision comes into effect this September.
	The DDA duties are new. Whereas duties under the special educational needs legislation were about provision meeting needs, the DDA requires schools: first, not to treat disabled pupils less favourably; and, secondly, to make "reasonable adjustments". Those duties have been widely welcomed, because they bring reasonable protection from unlawful discrimination. The National Autistic Society says that children on the autistic spectrum without a statement are frequently turned away from the school of their choice, especially those with Asperger's syndrome who are above average academically but need support and social interaction, as well as communication.
	The SEC argues that determining whether or not unlawful discrimination has taken place—the questions of less favourable treatment, reasonable adjustments and, perhaps hardest of all, an adequate understanding of the definition of "disability"—is a complex matter. That is why it feels the amendment is necessary.
	Other claims of unlawful discrimination will be heard by SENDIST, which has legally qualified chairs and members who will be specially trained over a number of days and develop expertise in hearing cases. This level of knowledge and expertise must be available locally if we are to avoid errors being made.
	I hope that the Minister can give an encouraging reply. At any rate, can she say how much training members will have in the DDA? Will the clerk have legal training in the DDA specifically? How will panel members access specialist advice on the DDA? Could a parent feel confident that every panel member will be properly equipped to hear claims of disability discrimination? I beg to move.

Lord Rix: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 200, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford.
	There will be some children for whom some schools at particular times can provide an appropriate education without risk of prejudice to the education of other children. However, it is easy for an admissions authority to use this escape clause to deny admission to children who are simply difficult in as much as they require extra effort, extra resources or extra skills because of their special educational needs.
	Amendment No. 200 would increase parents' confidence that SENDA tribunals will not conspire with schools in turning special needs into unnecessary barriers. It will do so by ensuring that effective ways of meeting special needs have been fully considered before a decision to deny admission is confirmed, thus avoiding any possible prejudices to the interests of other children. I look forward to a favourable reply.

Lord Lucas: So far as concerns the clause stand part, I merely hope that the noble Baroness will cover a little of what the new clause changes.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall begin by doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has asked me to do. Very briefly, this clause amends Section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We intend to prescribe in regulation the arrangements for parents whose child is not offered a place at their preferred school to be able to appeal to an independent appeal panel. Those regulations will simply replicate the existing provisions in Schedule 24 to the 1998 Act.
	Apart from replicating Schedule 24 in regulations, we do not intend to make any changes to the arrangements for admission appeal panels at the moment. However, we are monitoring how admission appeal panels work and, if any changes become necessary, we will be able to make them more quickly than at present by amending the regulations.
	We believe that the current arrangements are sensible and workable. Indeed, recent research by Sheffield Hallam University agrees with this conclusion. Changes are therefore unnecessary. But, as I said, we would like to have the flexibility to respond and make changes if and when they are needed. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
	As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, in regard to the training for chairs of appeal panels, from this September the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, will apply to access to education for the first time. Schools and local education authorities will be subject to new legal duties not to treat disabled pupils or prospective pupils less favourably than their non-disabled peers without justification and to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to non-disabled pupils.
	In regard to Amendment No. 199, I suggest that legal qualification is not necessary. By way of comparison, magistrates routinely administer the criminal law without being legally qualified persons but they do of course have access to legal advice from their clerk. Similarly, an appeal panel needs good sense and access to a clerk having legal knowledge and training. We have made it clear in statutory guidance that the clerk to the appeal panel should have legal training and be familiar with admissions and equal opportunities legislation. In addition, specific, targeted training is being developed for chairs of appeal panels that will include training on disability discrimination cases. We also intend to provide additional training material for other panel members.
	We are confident, therefore, in relation to Amendment No. 199 that admission appeals panels will be well prepared for their new responsibilities and will be an effective forum for redress in disability discrimination cases in relation to admission to education authority maintained schools. I also make the point that we ought perhaps to wait to see the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in operation before we consider further change.
	In addition, Amendment No. 199 presupposes that it will always be possible to identify beforehand those cases in which a claim of disability discrimination is involved. However, this may sometimes not be apparent until an admission appeal is actually being heard. In such cases, if the chair of the panel in question were not legally qualified, the amendment would require the hearing to be discontinued and a new panel convened with a legally qualified chair. This again could be unsatisfactory for the parents and child concerned.
	Finally, I would argue that Amendment No. 199 would also be impractical, simply because of the number of appeals that take place each year. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that these are locally arranged by individual local education authorities and governing bodies of schools that are their own admission authority, such as foundation and voluntary-aided schools. Appeals panel members are unpaid volunteers. Requiring the panels to include a legally qualified volunteer chair would inevitably mean delays in the appeals process, leaving parents and children with uncertainty for even longer, while a suitable person is found and the panel is arranged.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, will find these views persuasive.
	I turn finally to the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Current legislation already provides children with special educational needs with the protection that the amendment seems to be seeking.
	Section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act places a duty on education authorities and governing bodies of maintained schools to comply with any parental preference, expressed in accordance with local arrangements, as to the school at which they want their child to be educated. However, this duty does not apply in relation to any child where compliance with the duty would prejudice efficient education or would be incompatible with wholly selective admission arrangements. These admission provisions apply to the majority of children with special educational needs, since the majority do not have special educational needs statements.
	The school admissions code of practice advises that, so far as possible, any arrangements for testing ability or aptitude should be accessible to children with special educational needs, and gives examples of how this might be achieved. The code also makes clear that children with special educational needs but no statement should be treated as fairly under a school's admission criteria, including its over-subscription criteria, as other applicants.
	Where children with special educational needs, but for whom statements are not maintained, fulfil the criteria to be admitted to a selective maintained school, the school is under a duty to use its best endeavours to make the provision which their learning difficulties call for. This might include support for any particular aptitudes and abilities which such children may have.
	The admissions provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act, including those relating to appeals, generally do not apply to children with statements of special educational needs. Under the 1996 Act, the admission route for such children is through a school being named in a statement; parental appeals against the content of the statement (including the school named) are considered by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal rather than by local admission appeals panels. Where parents express a preference for a school, it must be one that is suitable for the child, bearing in mind his or her age, aptitude and ability, if it is to be named in the statement.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree, therefore, that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and will not press it.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before I decide what to do with my amendment, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Rix wishes to comment.

Lord Rix: No. I shall obviously have to read the Minister's words tomorrow morning, when my mind is a little clearer.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously, I should have liked her to accept the amendment. I am grateful for what she has said. I am very pleased that the clerk will have legal training. I think that she referred to fair admissions and equal opportunities, but I am not sure that she said anything about DDA training for the clerk. It is very important that he is familiar with the DDA. She also mentioned DDA training for chairmen. That is important not only for chairmen; all members of the panel should have training on the DDA and access to advice. I see the Minister nodding again. Good. I am ticking off my shopping list.
	That is reasonably satisfactory. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and go back to see what the SEC says. If necessary, perhaps we could discuss these points further outwith the Chamber, but meanwhile I am grateful to the Minister for her careful answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.